1990 PLP 1274 (CLC)

This appeal is directed against the order dated 30‑1‑1986 passed by the Ist Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Hyderabad, in Rent Application No.18 of 1984 filed by the appellant against the respondent for eviction on the grounds of default in payment of rent and personal bona fide requirement of the appellant.

2. It was stated by the appellant in his application under section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, that the respondent was his tenant at a n,unthlv rent of Rs.400 plus monthly electric charges of Rs.60 totalling Rs.460 per n ,nth It was alleged by the appellant that the respondent has failed to pay or tender rent in respect of the premises as well as electric charges from January, 1983 to December 1983 and June, 1979 to June, 1982, respectively. There were on the date of filing of ejectment application arrears of rent amounting to Rs.4,800 and arrears of electric charges in the sum of Rs.2,

220. It was further averred by the appellant that he was living in a rented premises in Shah Latifabad, at a monthly rent of Rs.900 apart from electric and gas charges and he now desires to shift to the house in question in old City as he is unable to afford high rental charges due to rise in cost of living and daily growing expenses on his children. He is a man of limited sources of income serving in the Indus Gas Co. and therefore the premises in good faith are required by him for occupation and use and for the occupation of his wife and children.

3. The respondent, in his written objections, has emphatically denied that the rate of rent of the premises was Rs.400 per month which in fact was Rs.200 per month. With regard to the payment of electric charges it was contended by him that the respondent had cleared all dues in respect thereof. It was however denied by him that the same were payable at the rate of Rs.60 per month to the appellant. With regard to the personal bona fide requirement of the appellant the respondent denied the same for want of knowledge and called upon him to strictly prove the same.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues:‑‑ (1) What was the rate of the rent of the disputed premises ? (2) Whether the opponent has been a defaulter in payment of rent since January 1983 to December, 1983 and electric charges since June, 1979 to June, 1982 ? (3) Whether the applicant requires the disputed premises for his personal bona fide use ? (4) What should the order be ?

5. It was held by the learned Rent Controller that the rent of the disputed premises was Rs.200 per month and that the respondent has not committed any default whatsoever. It was further held by him that the appellant does not require premises for his bona fide use.

6. I have gone through the order passed by the learned Rent Controller and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties with regard to issues Nos. (1) and (2) and I agree with the finding of the Rent Controller that there A was no agreement in writing and otherwise there is nothing on record as to how much was the agreed rent except ocular evidence. It was however an admitted position that the premises were rented out by the appellant to the respondent through the appellant's fast friend namely DW‑2 Salim, who had deposed that the rent was fixed at Rs. 200 per month and denied that the rent was fixed at Rs. 400 per month as alleged by the appellant. It is also an admitted position that the appellant never issued rent receipts to the respondent. The Rent Controller further held that the respondent had deposited a sum of Rs. 2,000 as security with the appellant on the basis of deposition of D.W. 2 Salim. There is also no satisfactory evidence on record to. establish that the respondent had agreed to pay Rs. 60 p.m. to the appellant as electric charges. On the contrary it has beena established that electric charges were being paid by the appellant directly and therefore I hold that the learned Rent Controller has rightly decided issues Nos. 1 and 2.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged before me that with regard to issue No. 3 the learned Rent Controller has failed to take into consideration the pleadings of the parties. He invited my attention to paras. 5 and 6 of the ejectment application in which he has specifically stated that the appellant has been paying Rs.900 as rent towards the house in which he is living presently. It is further stated by him that he is unable to afford such high rent coupled with rise in cost of living and daily growing expenses on his children. Being a man of limited income, he requires the premises in good faith for his own occupation and use and occupation of his wife and children. The averment made by the appellant specifically mentions the circumstances which compelled him to file ejectment application on this ground which was denied by the respondent for want of knowledge. Learned counsel for the appellant drew my attention to the deposition of the appellant, who has reiterated that he was unable to bear such high rent due to high cost of living. He has also produced rent receipts from his landlord Mustafa Khan. Mustafa Khan has also deposed stating that the appellant has been paying Rs. 900 as rent in respect of the house where he is living. The respondent in his written statement has denied payment of rent and electric charges by the appellant to Mustafa Khan as he was appellants' friend meaning thereby that the appellant had been living at his present accommodation free of charge. The respondent in cross‑examination however states that he does not know whether the rent receipts issued by Mustafa Khan are forged ones or genuine. He further states in his cross‑examination that he does not know whether the appellant requires the disputed premises for his personal bona fide need as well as for the use of his family. Learned counsel for the appellant conceded that it is not one of those cases of personal bona fide requirement wherein the usual plea of lack of accommodation is pleaded for obtaining demised premises on the ground of personal bona fide requirement. It is one of those unfortunate cases in which a landlord wishes to shift to his own house because he is not in a position to pay such high rent to his landlord, which amount would be available to him towards the welfare of his family members, as cost of living has admittedly gone up.

8. From the persusal of the impugned order I find that learned Rent Controller has failed to look into the pleadings of the parties, overlooked evidence and completely ignored ' the circumstances which compelled the appellant to file the ejectment proceedings on the ground of personal bona fide requirement. Hence I set aside the order dated 30‑1‑1986, passed by the 1st Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Hyderabad, with direction to the respondent to vacate the premises in question within 60 days hereof. A.A./N‑267/K Appeal accepted.