SHUJAUL HAQ Versus ZAINAB BIBI
1. The respondent filed ejectment application against the appellant in respect of two rooms flat on part of the second floor of the respondent's house constructed on plots 452‑C and 454‑C Block 2, Central Commercial area P.E.C.H.S., Karachi on the ground that she requires it for her bona fide personal requirement and for her son. The appellant denied the claim and pleaded that the respondent is in possession of the entire second and third floor of the building. It was pleaded that the entire first floor of the building in dispute has been rented out to Sarwat Ali and the respondent wants to enhance the rent. The learned Controller granted the ejectment application.
2. Mr. A. Rashid, Advocate has contended that bona fide requirement of the respondent was not made out. This is an admitted position that the disputed building is constructed on two plots bearing No. 452‑C and 454‑C. The first floor of the building is occupied by a tenant Sarwat Ali. On the second floor there are two portions of two rooms each one is occupied by the appellant and the other by the respondent. The third floor is also occupied by the respondent but it consists of temporary tin shed and is not a properly and duly constructed house. The respondent is residing in two rooms house on the first floor with his son who is married and has three daughters and two sons. The area of the rooms besides a small store, room and kitchen and balcony is 10 x 10 and 12 x 12 sq. ft.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that there are four rooms on the third floor which are occupied by the respondent and his family and, therefore, there is sufficient accommodation available to her. Admittedly the third floor consists of tin sheds and cannot be stated to be rooms fit for residential purposes. The same, therefore cannot be taken into consideration for meeting the needs of the respondent.
4. The learned counsel also contended that the respondent requires the premises for the need of her grandsons and granddaughters who are not the members of the family. The ,words 'personal use' are defined as 'the use of the premises by the owner or his wife (or husband), son or daughter. In the present case the respondent requires the premises for herself as well as for her son. Her son is a married person having two sons and three daughters who are studying from 4th class to B.A. class. The requirement of the respondent is for her son which will include the requirement of the son, his wife and children. It would be unreasonable to assume that the requirement should be restricted to the son only and not to his family members, as the son cannot be expected to leave his family and come to reside alone. This would amount to imposing unreasonable limits and restricting the logical implications. Therefore, two rooms of the area stated above are insufficient for the respondent and his son.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant then contended that the respondent could have obtained ejectment of the first floor but as she is charging high rent she is not interested to eject him. The choice to use a particular premises lies with the landlord but in the present case even the choice made by the respondent is not unreasonable or mala fide. The respondent is residing on the second floor adjacent to which is the disputed house. The entire house if occupied by the respondent will be a compact house for the entire family. Therefore, the respondent had made out a case for bona fide requirement for herself and her son. The appeal is therefore, dismissed. The appellant should vacate the premises within four months failing which writ of possession shall be issued without notice.
6. M . Y . H . /S‑210/ K Appeal dismissed.