JAN MUHAMMAD Versus BASHIRAN BEGUM

1. The respondent filed application for ejectment against the appellant on the ground of personal requirement as her husband had been served with a notice to vacate the premises which was situated in Jacob Lines and was required for purposes of development. The appellant denied the claim. The respondent had filed ejectment application through her husband and attorney Ch. Hakimuddin but the appellant challenged his authority to file it. The learned Controller by the impugned order has granted the ejectment application.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the tenancy agreement was between the appellant and Ch. Hakimuddin the husband of the respondent and in fact the appellant has no relationship with the respondent. In this regard the learned counsel has referred to the alleged agreement dated 26‑5‑1970 photo copy which had been annexed with the ejectment application. This document has been signed by the appellant and a witness but not by the respondent or her husband. However, it is not necessary to go into all these details as the appellant has not denied the relationship with the respondent which is obvious from the pleadings. In this regard) paragraph 1 of the application reads as follows:‑

3. "That within the limits of Police Station Brigade, the opponent is the tenant of the applicant in respect of half portion within House bearing No.C/283, Khudadad Colony, Karachi, since 1970, upon present monthly rent of Rs. 200. It is submitted that initially the rental was Rs. 125."

4. In his written statement the appellant replied as follows:‑

5. "That the contents of para 1 are not denied. However, it is stated that the agreement has already expired and the opponent is a statutory tenant and the rate of rent is Rs. 200 as stated, which was increased from the original rent agreed to by the parties."

6. There is a clear admission by the appellant and he cannot resile from this statement during evidence. The main objection by the learned counsel for the appellant is that Ch. Hakimuddin is the landlord and the respondent is not the landlady but in view by this admission made by the appellant no further inquiry is needed.

7. The next contention raised by the learned counsel is that the husband of the respondent is not duly authorised attorney as the power of attorney filed and acted upon is not properly stamped. From the record and the order of the learned Controller it seems that this objection was not raised at the time when evidence was recorded or even at the time of arguments. Therefore, in appeal this objection cannot be entertained.

8. The third contention of the learned counsel is that the bona fide requirement of the respondent has not been established. The respondent was living with her husband in a house in Jacob Lines who has been served with a notice of eviction as the area is required for development. The respondent has seven members of family and there is nothing on record to show that she owns arty other house which is available for occupation. She has also filed ejectment case in respect of part of the house which is subject‑matter of F.R.A. 188/87. Her claim is that both these tenements will be needed for her personal requirement. However, this appeal is concerned with the tenement occupied by the appellant. In these circumstances in my view the respondent has established her bona fide requirement for her persona use and occupation. The appeal is therefore dismissed with costs. The appellant should vacate the disputed premises within four months.

9. H. B. T./J‑51/K Appeal dismissed.