1986 PLP 2048 (CLC)

Shafaat Hussain for Respondent This appeal is directed against the judgment of Xth Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi, dated 23‑5‑1984 whereby the appellant was ordered to be ejected from the premises bearing No. 296, Blocks 7 and 8, C.P. Berar Cooperative Housing Society, Karachi.

2. The admitted position is that the appellant is the tenant of the respondent. On 8‑4‑1979 R.C. No. 1877 of 1979 was filed by the respondent claiming that the appellant had failed to pay rent for 3 months from 1‑1‑1979 to 31‑3‑1979 and that the respondent had no sufficient accommodation for his residence and he required it.

3. In the written statement the appellant denied that there was any default and stated that the respondent had failed to carry out the repairs and had created actually seize (sic) and that the story of personal use concocted in order to eject the opponent.

4. Issues on default and personal requirement were framed. Imtiaz Ahmad reiterated the contents of application and further stated that he had 10 members of his family including his wife and 8 children and that 3 of the children were school‑going and he was at that time staying in most inconvenient, unsuitable and dirty locality and 10 members were residing in one Katcha room in dirty surrounding. In cross‑examination he has stated that he had been residing since 1947‑48 in the present. residence and he had erected brick construction having iron shutters on the roof (by iron shutters probably iron sheets are meant). He denied that his residence was in thickly population area but admitted that it was near Government Servants' Quarters near Clayton Road He asserted that his 5 children were studying in 10th, 6th, 5th and 3rd class respectively and the school was one furlong from the present residence. He denied that Verandah was attached to his residence. He admitted that he has not received any notice of demolition of his unauthorised construction. He denied that the premises were not required by him and wanted to re‑let the same. He denied that he wanted to harass the appellant. Shafiullah and Rafiq Ahmed supported the respondent in their affidavit and they were also cross examined, but the claim of the respondent that he has 10 members of his family and the accommodation with him was insufficient has not been seriously challenged. In fact the respondent was not at all a challenged on the point that there were 10 members of his family and except that a suggestion was put to him and there was a Verandah in his present accommodation, the accommodation in possession of the respondent was not challenged seriously.

5. Tauqeeruddin Pasha filed his affidavit for the appellant and alleged that there was some dispute between the parties and also stated that the respondent was living for the last 30 years in the present accommodation and he had suppressed the area, and accommodation of the house which has 3 rooms, Verandah plus other attachment and was quite spacious and he lives conveniently, with his family near Jamshaid Road while the premises in the possession of the appellant was a small one comprising two rooms only. But the effect of these affidavits was lost in cross‑examination when he admitted that he had seen present abode of the respondent about 8 years back and further admitted that he had not seen it internally and that he could not give the number of family of the respondent. He further admitted that he had not witnessed what he had mentioned in his affidavit of evidence, but it was ventilated to him by the appellant. The appellant was not examined at all in support of the statement of Tauqeeruddin to corroborate what he had stated and, therefore, the position is that Taqeeruddin had not seen the accommodation of the respondent and, therefore, his affidavit is merely based on hearsay and the same is hardly of any consequence.

6. The. position is, therefore, on record is that the statement of the respondent in respect of the difficulties that he has in his present accommodation gone unchallenged. 10 members of one family including 5 school‑going children living in one room with iron sheets over their head must be living with great difficulty in one room which they had at the moment and, therefore, I am of the view that the Rent Controller was quite justified in ordering ejectment of the appellant. Mr. Afzal could not point out any circumstances which could show that the requirement of the respondent was not bona fide. Afte all a landlord is entitled to live in better accommodation and better surrounding and merely the fact that he has chosen to live for number of years in the present accommodation does not debar him from claiming better surrounding and better accommodation for his family.

7. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed, but in view of the fact that the appellant shall have a good deal of difficulty to find suitable accommodation in Karachi, therefore, I allow him 6 months time to vacate the premises, provided she continue to deposit the rent regularly in Court. In case of default in payment of rent or on the expiry of 6 months, whichever is earlier, from today a direct writ attachment without notice will be issued against the appellant. H . B . T . Eviction upheld.