1984 PLP 213 (MLD)

The respondent in his written statement denied the allegation of the appellant and contended that by way of these ejectment proceedings the appellant wants to get the rent enhanced. The learned Rent Controller on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed the following 3 issues:- (1) Whether the opponent/ respondent is a source of trouble as alleged and has caused nuisance? (2) Whether the premises is required by the applicant /appellant bona fidely for her use? (3) What should the order be? The learned Rent Controller taking into consideration the evidence adduced and for the reasons given in the impugned order answered issue No.1 and 2 in the negative and consequently dismissed the appellant's ejectment application on both the grounds and therefore the appellant has filed the above appeal, on the grounds mentioned in the memo. of appeal. The appellant's attorney Mr.Riazuddin appeared in person and in support of the above appeal submitted as under: (a) that learned Rent Controller has failed to appreciate the evidence brought on record in respect of both the issues which were proved to the hilt. (b) that the appellant is an unmarried girl and on account of her strained relations with step-mother she wants to shift to her own house and this fact has been completely ignored by the learned Rent Controller. The learned Advocate for the respondent on the other hand submitted, that the appellant is occupying the first floor completely and is staying with her father. The appellant has been in habit of giving notices for vacating the premises and/or enhancing of rents such notices were not pressed even previously and consequently the appellant's contention that she requires the premises for her own personal and bona fide use is mala fide, as appellant on the basis of such notices and pressures has already enhanced the rent of the premises twice before. I have carefully considered the above submissions made by the learned Advocates before me and have gone through the R & P of the learned trial Court as well as the impugned judgment. It may be noted that appellant did not choose to go into the witness-box, but examined her father, who is also attorney in support of her ejectment application. I have carefully gone through the statement of appellant's father recorded before the learned Rent Controller as well as through the statement of the respondent. Keeping in view the statements of the parties and their cross-examination before the learned Rent Controller, I see no reason to disagree with the conclusions and finding arrived at by the learned Rent Controller in respect of both the ground, on which the ejectment was sought. The respondent in his cross-examination was asked question in respect of the previous ejectment notices. In reply to that question the respondent admitted to have received such notices in 1974 as well as in 1976, but submitted that she increased rent of the premises, the appellant did not take any action for the ejectment of the respondent. This admitted fact which is brought in the cross-examination of the respondent and the question which was put to respondent in cross-examination regarding meagre amount of rent, the conclusions of the learned Rent Controller that the ejectment application in question was filed by the appellant in order to pressurise appellant to increase the rent of the premises in question, cannot be considered to be without any evidence on record. It is also clear to me from the evidence brought on record before the learned Rent Controller that the appellant had filed the ejectment application in order to pressurise the appellant to increase the rent, otherwise the appellant would have taken action on giving previous notices for ejectment in the year 1974 and 1976 which she failed to do so, as the respondent at that time agreed to increase the rent of the premises in his occupation. Therefore in my opinion the ejectment application in question was filed mala fidely and I see no reason to disagree with the conclusions and findings of the learned Rent Controller arrived at by him in the impugned judgment. In view of my above conclusions and findings I find no merits in the above appeal, which is consequently dismissed with costs. M. A. K. Appeal dismissed.