1995 PLP 1719 (CLC)

Date of hearing: 4th April, 1995. This appeal under section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 is directed against the order dated 15‑1‑1989, passed by the then VIth learned Rent Controller, Karachi, East, whereby he directed the appellant to hand over vacant possession of the premises in question to respondent Syed Nasiruddin, now dead, within one month from the date of said order. The facts relevant for decision of this appeal are as follows:‑‑ Above named predcessor‑in‑interest of the respondents on 25‑5‑1980 had filed Rent Case No.3188/80 against the appellant for his eviction from the flat on Ist floor, on Plot No.158, CP and Berar Society Block 7 and 8 Karachi, on the ground ‑of bona fide personal use, as the accommodation in his possession was insufficient for his requirements. The appellant is a tenant in said flat at monthly rent of Rs.500 plus Rs.10 p.m. as water charges. He had also filed the Rent Case No. 3183/80 against the tenant namely, Shaikh Ahmed, in respect of another flat on first floor on said plot on the ground of personal requirement. Both these applications were dismissed by the Rent Controller. Rent Appeal No.2653/84 filed against said Shaikh Ahmed was allowed by this Court. Consequently, the possession of said flat was handed over to deceased Syed Nasiruddin. The appeal, bearing No.1149 of 1984, preferred against the appellant was also allowed, and the case was remanded to the Rent Controller for deciding it afresh on the point, if the need of the respondent was satisfied by getting possession of the flat from said Shaikh Ahmed, or still he requires the premises in question for bona fide need of his family members. The case of the appellant is that the respondents have sufficient accommodation for their requirements, and the eviction application is mala fide. Nizamuddin, Razzak Ali and Syed Ali Gohar Shah filed their affidavits on behalf of the respondents, while the appellant filed his own affidavit. All were cross‑examined. Learned Rent Controller after assessing the evidence reached the conclusion that, in spite of the fact that possession of one flat was delivered to respondents, still, they require the flat in question and their demand is bona fide. Accordingly, he allowed the eviction application by the order, which has been challenged in this appeal. Mr. Khalid Javed learned counsel for the appellant contended that learned Rent Controller failed to appreciate the evidence on record, particularly the fact that the respondents are in occupation of an independent bungalow No.25, CP and Berar Cooperative Housing Society, having six bed‑rooms in addition to flat the possession of which they have already taken as such, the present accommodation available to them is much more their actual requirement and they want to evict the appellant for the only purpose to rent out the said premises on higher rent. Learned counsel also submitted that the two sons of the predecessor‑in‑interest of the respondents, namely, S. Munir Ali, and Gohar Ali are presently in Australia, and his three married daughters are residing with their husbands. In support of these contentions he cited (1) Mrs. Shah NoorFazal v. Ghulam Akbar Mangi 1987 SCMR 2051, (2) Ghulam Haider v. Abdul Ghaffar and another 1992 SCMR 1303 and (3) Muhammad Iqbal and another v. Mst. Saeeda Bano 1993 SCMR 1559. In the case of Mrs. Shah No or Fazal's case, the petitioner had two flats, one was lying vacant and the other was in possession of the respondent. It was observed that in absence of specific pleadings as to vacant premises not being sufficient for her needs, she could not claim ejectment of the respondent from the disputed premises. In Ghulam Haider's case, the point under consideration was whether the landlord was required to explain why accommodation in his possession was not suitable for his purpose. In Muhammad lqbal's case landlady had filed applications for two shops separately without specifying in other application that one shop would not be sufficient for her son's need. 1t was observed that there being no evidence on record that landlady required both shops, she was allowed to have possession of only one shop. On the strength of above case‑law, learned counsel argued that the respondents have not offered plausible explanation as to their present requirements, as such, the finding of the learned Rent Controller, is contrary to the material, available on record. Above contentions have no force. The above‑cited cases are not applicable to this case and are distinguishable on facts. There is no hard and fast rule for determining the quantum of accommodation a person may require for his needs and much always would depend upon the facts of each case, particularly his Social Status and mode of living to which he is accustomed. The respondents seem to enjoy good Social Status in Society. Two of them are getting education in a Foreign Country. 15 years back they sought the eviction of the appellant on the ground of personal requirement. Since then their family members have increased and so their requirements. Even at the time of filing the eviction applications respondents Syed Razzak Ali Shah and Vilayat Ali Shah were of marriageable age. Respondent Saeeda Rabia was a Medical Student. Their 3 sisters were already married and frequently visited their parents, brother, sisters, and stayed with them. After sometime, respondents Gohar Ali Shah and Munir Ali Shah also became major. All these circumstances, lend support to their plea of personal requirements. Once the claim of the landlord is spelt out by irrefutable evidence the same cannot be defeated on technical objections/formalism. The essential requirement is that each party is afforded a fair opportunity to present its point of view, and this was done in this case. Respondent Gohar Ali Shah, in his affidavit‑in‑evidence, stated that present accommodation in their possession consists of six rooms, including a dining and drawing room and only three are bed‑rooms. According to him, they have two servants, who also live with them. If four brothers want to live separately the appellant, as a tenant, has no right to suggest them that they should live together. Their married sister also cannot be restrained to visit their brothers and live with them on ceremonial occasions. Mere fact that two of the respondents namely Munir Ali Shah and Gohar Ali Shah at present are in Australia, does not necessarily mean that they do not have any right to keep their accommodation/house in their own country. According to respondent Razzak Ali Shah they have gone there temporarily for getting education and would return back on completion of their studies. Besides, there is only one stair‑case which leads td the first floor, where two flats are situated. The respondents may feel inconvenience when the same stair‑case is used by strangers. The finding of the learned Rent Controller that the respondents still require the premises in question for their personal bona fide use is perfectly correct and no exception can be taken to it. In consequence, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to cost. The appellant is directed to hand over vacant possession of the premises in question to the respondents within four months from now. H.B.T./S‑1139/K Appeal dismissed.