1985 PLP 2001 (CLC)

This appeal is directed against the order, dated 23-1-1984 passed by the learned IX Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller in Rent Case No. 4254 of 1980 filed by the respondent against the appellant for ejectment on two grounds namely, default and personal requirement. The above case was resisted by the present appellant. The learned Rent Controller on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed the following three issues:-- (1) Whether the opponent committed default from August, 1979? (2) Whether the case premises is needed for the personal bona fide use of the applicant? (3) What should the order be?

2. The respondent examined her husband Muhammad Aqil and her two brothers namely Nasir Dawood Barry and Shamim Ahmad Barry; whereas the appellant examined himself. The learned Rent Controller after hearing the parties allowed the application on both the grounds. The appellant being aggrieved by the above order has filed the present appeal. 3. (a) In support of the above appeal Mr. Akhtar Hussain learned counsel for the appellant has urged as follows: (i) That since the appellant had sent a money order on 22-8-1979 which was refused and as the appellant started depositing rent in Court from 12-11-1979, there was no default. (ii) That the personal requirement has not been proved. (b) On the other hand Mr. Rehmat Elahi learned counsel for the respondent has contended that even if the ground of default is not maintained the ground of personal requirement has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

4. I have gone through the evidence and find that the respondent had let out this premises to the appellant in 1961. She was married in 1964. Since 1978 she has been putting up with her mother alongwith her husband and four children. There seems to be a bona fide personal requirement. However, Mr. Akhtar Hussain has submitted that the respondent had not examined her mother in support of her case. It will suffice to observe that the factum that she has been putting up with her mother since 1978 has not even been denied by the appellant. In the cross-examination it was suggested to the appellant that after marriage the respondent had gone to Sukkur and from there she returned in 1978 which suggestion was not denied by the appellant. On the other hand he has admitted that the respondent has been requesting for vacation of the house since 1978. In view of the above evidence I concur with the finding of the learned Rent Controller on the question of personal requirement. Mr. Akhtar Hussain learned counsel for the appellant requests for one year's period in order to enable the appellant to make aangement for alternate accommodation. However, I grant six months timerrfrom today on the condition that the appellant shall continue to deposit rent in terms of the Rent Controller's order, failing which the respondent shall be at liberty to file execution application before the expiry of the above period of six months. Furthermore, in case the appellant fails to hand over the vacant possession on the expiry of above period of six months, the learned Rent Controller shall issue a writ of ejectment without further notice to the appellant. A.A. Appeal dismissed.