1986 PLP 319 (MLD)

A. Ghafoor Muhammad for Appellant. A. Rafiq Khan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 18th November, 1985. This order will govern the disposal of First Rent Appeal No. 1177 of 1984 and First Rent Appeal No. 1178 of 1984. Both these appeals are filed by the two tenants of House No.A/296, Block 'H', North Nazimabad, Karachi residing on the first and ground floor respectively. In both the cases the Rent Controller granted the ejectment application on the ground of personal and bona fide requirement. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that there was no jurisdiction for the Rent Controller for passing order of eviction in both the cases as there was not enough evidence to reach the conclusion that both the premises were bona fidely needed by the landlord for his personal use and occupation. Alternatively it is contended that the Rent Controller did not apply his mind while granting ejectment in both the cases that only one premises could have satisfied the requirement pleaded by the landlord in the two cases. The landlord/ respondent instituted both the cases in which he urged sole ground of personal and bona fide requirement. Before institution of the case on 19‑10‑1982 the landlord served notices on both the tenants calling upon them to vacate the premises as he needed the same to accommodate himself as well as his children who are studying in Karachi. In his evidence before the Rent Controller the respondent stated that he let out the premises to the appellant in Appeal No.1178 of 1984 in 1974 and to the appellant in First Rent Appeal No.1177 of 1984 in the year 1980. He further stated that at the time he let out the above premises he was residing at Naudero, Taluka Ratodero, District Larkana. 'He further stated in his evidence before the Rent Controller that three of his grown up children were receiving education in different institutions in Karachi and in order to accommodate them he has hired a house on rent in Karachi. He has also stated that his other children have also grown up by now and he has come down to Karachi alongwith his entire family with the object of settling in Karachi and that the total number of his family members consists of 17 members. The fact that the three children of the respondent were studying in a school was not at all disputed in the cross‑examination. On the contrary the only plea raised in the written statement filed by the appellant in First Rent Appeal No.1177 of 1984 was that these children were already studying in Karachi at the time when the premises were let out to him. The learned counsel for the appellants has relied on the circumstance to contend that if the applicant's sons were already studying at Karachi at the time the premises were let out to him it could not be said that the premises were bona fidely needed by the respondent /landlord. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the appellants/ tenants that there was no proof available before the Rent Controller to hold that the premises occupied by the sons of the landlord was a rented premises as the landlord of that premises was not examined in the case. None of these contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant has any merit. There is nothing in the cross‑examination of the respondent/ landlord to show that the genuineness of the receipt produced by the respondent to prove payment of rent of rental premises was disputed or that it was suggested to the respondent that his sons were already in Karachi at the time when the premises were let out to one of the appellants. Apart from it mere fact that premises were let out to one of the appellants at the time when the landlord's sons were studying at Karachi was not necessary to non‑suit him or to lead to the conclusion that the application suffered from lack of bona fides as the application was not "filed" solely on the ground that the respondent wanted to accommodate his three sons. The respondent in his evidence stated that he has since shifted from Naudero to Karachi alongwith his entire family which consisted of 17 members and this part of the testimony of the respondent was not at all disputed by the appellants in the cross‑examination. Keeping in view the fact that the appellant's sons were receiving education at Karachi and his family consists of such a large number the demand for the entire house which consists of two floors on a plot of 200 square yards was neither unreasonable nor arbitrary. The Rent Controller, therefore, was justified in the circumstances of the case to pass an order for eviction of both the tenants as nothing was brought on record to establish his mala fides. There is no merit in these appeals which are accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances of the case I will make no order as to costs. Keeping in view the fact that the rent application was instituted in the year 1983 I will grant ten months time to the appellants to vacate the premises on the condition that during this period the appellants shall continue to deposit regularly the monthly rent in Court and in case of default in payment of rent or their failure to vacate the premises after the expiry of ten months period they will be evicted from the premises without any further notice. M.Y.H Appeal dismissed.