MESSRS TIGER WIRE PRODUCT LTD. vs S. ABRAR HUSSAIN

ORDER

1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment dated 22nd December, 1980 of the Sind High Court whereby the respondent's second appeal arising out of an eviction order passed against the petitioner under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 was allowed and while setting aside the first appellate order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller, the petitioner was ordered to be evicted. He was allowed four months' time to vacate the demised premises.

2. The eviction order is based on the plea of personal requirement of the respondent, who had in his application averred that he needed the property in dispute for his own use as also the use of his family. During the trial it transpired that he needed the premises for his own use as also his wife and further that he wanted to accommodate some dependent close relations, who together with the respondent are under notice of eviction from another rented property. The main questions raised by the learned counsel in addition to these relatable to the appreciation of evidence is that the need of a family member, who is not the child of the landlord is not relevant for considering the question of bona fide requirement of the landlord under the Ordinance. It has also been argued that even if it be assumed that the respondent wanted to give up residence in a rented house so as to occupy a house owned by himself, the house in question is so big that it would be beyond his genuine need. Learned counsel has relied on Abdul Salam Akhtar v. Dr. Najam Parvez (1976 SCMR 52) to contend that the needs of relations other than the children of the landlord cannot be considered as relevant for eviction on ground of personal use. The decision in Abdul Salam Akhtar's case goes against the petitioner. As held in the said case, in this case also the respondent has sought eviction of the petitioner on ground of his own use as well. He has not sought the eviction of the petitioner simply and only for his relation, who needed to be accommo--dated, as his dependents.

3. It cannot be said that the respondent and his wife with regard to whom it is not the case of the petitioner that she is not dependent upon the respondent do not bona fide require the premises for his own use. That being so, if after occupying the same he accommodate someone else, a relation or otherwise, the law does not prohibit it. As to whether the respondent/landlord is showing extravagance in occupying a big house which is owned by him is not such a circumstance to which a tenant can object.

4. The other aspects in fact relate to the appreciation of evidence by the High Court which does not suffer from any infirmity. We find no force in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed.