JUNAID AHMAD Versus SHAH NIZAMUL HAQ

1. The appellant Junaid Ahmed is a tenant of the respondent Shah Nizamul Haq in a portion of premises bearing No. A‑14, Block‑A, North Nazimabad, Karachi at the rent of Rs.325 per month. The respondent/ landlord filed Rent Case No. 636/80 against the appellant/tenant for his ejectment on the grounds of default in payment of rent, subletting and personal need of the landlord for getting the premises vacated. The appellant resisted ejectment application. The learned Controller by his order, dated 29th September, 1984, decided the issues of default in payment of rent and subletting against the landlord; but he ordered ejectment of the appellant on the ground that the landlord /respondent bona fidely needed the rented premises for his own living. This appeal is directed against that order.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the respondent does not bona fidely need the rented premises for his own use but he has sought ejectment of the appellant as the appellant did not agree to enhance rent. He has urged that it is on the record that the respondent has been residing in one portion of the premises and the accommodation in his occupation consists of one bed‑room, one drawing/dining room with a Veranda, a store room and one room on the roof and that accommodation is sufficient for a family consisting on the respondent, his wife and his two children. He has stated that the respondent has disclosed in evidence that his aged mother also was living with them but she died during the pendency of the ejectment case. According to him, the case cited as P L D 1984 Kar. 14, relied upon by the learned Controller in ordering ejectment of the appellant, is not applicable in the facts of the case.

3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has urged that the family of the respondent consists of himself, his wife and their two school going children and the accommodation in their occupation viz. one bed‑room, a drawing and dining room and a store room with a small room on the roof is not sufficient for their living and they do need the rented premises for their own comfortable living. He has placed reliance on the cases reported in P L D 1984 Kar. 14; 1984 C L C 50 and 1981 C L C 327.

4. Ejectment of the appellant has been ordered on the ground that the respondent /landlord needs the premises for his own living. It is not disputed that the rented premises is one portion of the building where the respondent /landlord has been living in the other portion. The accommodation available with the respondent /landlord is that of one bed‑room, one drawing/dining room, a store room and one Katcha built room on the roof; and the rented premises consists of two bed‑rooms, drawing and dining room and a store room. It is also not disputed that the family of the respondent /landlord consists of himself, his wife, their grown up son and a school going daughter. It is obvious that the premises, the respondent and his family members have been living in is not sufficient for their bare needs and they do need suitable accommodation for their own living. The learned Controller has rightly held that the respondent /landlord does need the rented premises for his own living. The cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent do support the proposition that the landlord has the choice for comfortable living. Accordingly, there is no merit in the appeal and it is dismissed with costs.

5. The appellant is allowed three months time to vacate the premises and handover its possession to the respondent.

6. A.A. Appeal dismissed.