1989 PLP 1436 (MLD)

Muhammad Sadiq for Appellant. Muhammad Idrees for Respondent. Date of hearing: 15th December, 1988. This First Rent Appeal has been filed against the order dated 10‑8‑86 of IInd Sr. Civil Judge and Rent Controller Karachi, West. The facts are that Rent Case No. 458/85 was filed by Mushtaq Ahmed against respondent Abdul Rashid under section 16 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance. 1979 on the ground of personal bona fide requirement. The written statement was filed and before the Rent Controller appellant examined himself while respondent Abdul Rashid appeared and his evidence was recorded. Mr. Muhammad Sadiq for the appellant argued that appellant has a big family and present accommodation is not sufficient. He has argued that personal bona fide requirement has been proved by the appellant and he is entitled to have possession. He has referred to the cases reported in PLD 1988 Kar. 533‑1986 CLC 2522. Mr. Mohammad Idrees learned counsel appearing for the respondent argued that previously this house was given on rent to Abdul Majeed who vacated thereafter appellant let out the premises to the respondent. It is argued that appellant has his own house and‑ requirement is not bona fide. He has referred to the cases reported in 1988 CLC 1833 and 1985 CLC 2455. The relationship and the rate of rent are admitted. The only ground taken in the rent application is that appellant is residing in an unauthorised but which has been constructed on plot of about 50 to 55 sq. yds. In cross‑examination he has admitted that he is residing in a personal house where electricity and gas is available. Respondent Abdul Rashid has stated that be was inducted as tenant on 10‑11‑1979 at the rate of Rs.300 per month. He has stated that Abdul Majeed was ejected only after two years of the tenancy' and house was let out to me at the enhanced rate. In para. No.7 of the affidavit he has stated that appellant brought two persons on two different dates and his case is that appellant wants to sell this house or let out on enhance rent as he demanded Rs.600 per month from him. He stated that appellant refused to receive the rent consequently he is depositing in the Misc. Rent case. During the course of arguments I am informed that house in which appellant is living is in Golimar while house for which the Rent case is filed is situated at North Nazimabad and both the houses are at long distance. The appellant has not stated that he has decided to shift to disputed house. The family of the appellant in these circumstances cannot live in two different houses when his children are not gown up. The rent Controller has taken all these points into consideration and also assessed the evidence of the appellant and the respondent and dismissed the application. For the reasons stated above I am of the view that personal bona fide requirement is not proved. The appeal is dismissed with no order as to cost. M.Y.H./M‑744/K Appeal dismissed.