1970 PLP 539 (SCMR)

M. R. KHAN, J.‑The dispute in this case relates to residen tial bungalow No. 555 J. M. 3/62/2, Catholic Co‑operative Housing Society, Dadabhoy Nooroji Road, Jamshed Quarters, Karachi. The petitioner was in occupation of the bungalow as a tenant of the respondent. In 1964, the respondent made an application for eviction of the petitioner on the ground that he required the bungalow for his own occupation. This application was rejected by the Controller whose order was confirmed on appeal by the Additional District Judge, Karachi. On second appeal by the respondent, a learned Single Judge of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, reversed the order appealed against and passed a decree for eviction. The petitioner now seeks special leave to appeal from the order of eviction passed by the High Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the require ments of subsection (3) of section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 were not satisfied in this case so as to entitle the respondent to claim eviction. According to the learned counsel, the respondent who had been in occu pation of another residential house of his own sold away that house and purchased a flat where he has since been residing. Accordingly, it is contended that the bungalow in dispute is not bona fide required for the respondent's occupation. All these contentions were raised before the learned Single Judge, but these were repelled for which valid reasons were given. The house sold away by the respondent was in a bad state of repairs. He was under notice by the K. D. A. to effect repairs. As, however, he had not the means to carry out the necessary repairs, he sold away the house and with its sale proceeds purchased a flat on the third storey of a building on Randal Road, Karachi, where he has been staying at present. The respondent is aged 81 years, and the medical evidence is that he has been suffering from cataract of both eyes, arthralgia in both knees and coronary in sufficiency. He has been advised not to climb up stairs and to reside on ground floor. In view of this medical evidence, the learned Judge was satisfied that the res pondent is in need of the disputed bungalow for his own occupa tion. The medical evidence did not receive due consideration of the Controller and the appellate authority. In order to be sure about the ailments of the respondent, the learned Single Judge examined two other doctors as witnesses during the hearing of the second appeal and was satisfied about his illness. These doctors advised that due to old age and coronary insufficiency walking upstairs would be detrimental to the respondent. It can not, therefore, be said that the learned Judge was wrong in hold ing that the respondent requires the disputed bungalow for his own occupation. Learned counsel then submits that the bungalow is big enough and is capable of being divided into two units for accommodating both the petitioner and the respondent. The conten tion is irrelevant, for the Rent Restriction Ordinance does not warrant division of a residential house for being shared by both the landlord and the tenant. The petition is dismissed. Leave refused.