ATTIA BEGUM Versus MUSTAFA GHAFFAR

1. This first rent appeal under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter to be referred as Ordinance) has been filed against the judgment, dated 22nd. December, 1984 of VIIth Rent Controller Karachi whereby he dismissed the rent application of the appellant.

2. A Rent Case No. 1070 of 1980 was filed by the appellant under section 15 of the Ordinance on the ground of personal bona fide requirements. The Rent Controller on the pleading of the parties framed only one issue which has been decided against‑'the appellant. Before the Rent Controller appellant Azizuddin and his son Shafiq Paracha were examined while on behalf of respondent one Mustafa Ghaffar filed affidavit in evidence in rebuttal and was examined.

3. Azizuddin who is now dead was the owner of Bungalow No. 152‑B, Sindhi Muslim Housing Society and respondent is tenant. It is averred in para. 4 of the rent application that appellant requires the premises in good faith for the occupation and use of his own children and cause of action arose in August 1979 when appellant called upon respondent to vacate the premises. In written statement respondent stated that premises presently in the occupation of appellant is quite sufficient for his needs and rent case has been filed because appellant wanted to increase the rent which respondent did not agree. Corlso,7,‑ntl`, appellant stopped to accept the rent in order to create ground for ejectment.

4. Azizuddin in his affidavit in evidence stated that he has three daughters out of whom two are married and live with their husbands and one daughter namely Miss Attia Begum is widow and she has grown up children namely Razzaq 22 years, Adila 20 years and Ghazala 18 years old and premises where he was living is not sufficient. He has stated that in all they are eight persons who are residing in the house. Shafiq Paracha son of Azizuddin stated that his father arranged his marriage after the month of Ramazan and it is desire of his father that he (Shafiq) and his wife would live separately. He has stated that presently he is living in 69‑B, K.D.A. Scheme No. 1, Karachi. Respondent Ghulam Mustafa Ghaffar in his affidavit stated that appellant is living in Bungalow of 2200 sq. yds. consists of seven bedrooms in Posh locality of Karachi i.e. K.D.A. Scheme No.l which was owned by his deceased wife who died in 1978. He has stated that appellant has filed this case with mala fide as he wanted to increase the rent.

5. I have heard Mr. S.S. Nazir Ahsan for the appellant. It is contended that Shafiq Paracha is living in 'Holiday Hotel' as he has no other accommodation. It is also argued that personal bona fide is proved through the evidence of Azizuddin and Shafiq Paracha. He has cited the case reported in 1968 S C M 8.1087, 1986 C L C 1747 and 1986 C L C 1749. ?????

6. Mr. Mansoorul Arfin appearing for the respondent contended that in the year 1968 appellant got vacant possession of the ground floor of the premises which he did not occupy but filed this case against the respondent with mala fide intention. He has referred to the case reported in 1986 C L C 1498.

7. In the rent application there is only mentioned that premises require for occupation and use of his own children. But he has not given number of the children for whom the premises were required. In affidavit‑in‑evidence Azizuddin stated that he is in need of the premises as he wanted Shafiq to marry. In the cross‑examination he has admitted that he was living in house owned by his wife and there are seven bedrooms. The house is constructed on 2,200 sq. yds. where he was living with two sons, one widow and second wife. He has admitted that he got the vacant possession of the ground floor of the disputed premises in 1978 from Habib against whom Rent case No. 2187 of 1975 was filed on the ground of personal use. He produced certified copy of the ejectment and his statement. He has stated that ground floor was rented out in the year 1979 w.e.f. 1‑11‑1979. Shafiq Paracha nowhere stated that premises in dispute are required for any other member of the family and also stated that he was living in 69‑B, K.D.A. Scheme No.l, Karachi. But in cross-examination he has stated that before his marriage he used to live with his father but his father did not agree to his marriage, therefore, he shifted to Holiday Inn Hotel.

8. The contention of Mr. Mansoorul Arfin is that in November, 1979 appellant rented out the ground floor which he could have easily given to his son. There is force in the argument as in this case appellant stated that cause of action arose in August 1979 whereas he got vacant possession of ground floor in the year 1978 and he rented out to other tenant on 11‑11‑1979, therefore, in August 1979 A he had ground floor in his possession in which Shafiq could have been accommodated. The Rent Controller has dealt with this case in detail and I am of the view that he has rightly dismissed the rent case, therefore, his order calls for no interference. Consequently the appeal is dismissed. The parties to bear their own costs.

9. H.B.T./A‑241/K ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Appeal dismissed.