MUHAMMAD ISMAIL Versus MUHAMMAD RIAZUL HAQ

For the purposes of this appeal Filed under section 21 of the Sind Rented ‑Premises Ordinance, 1979, the following statement of facts would suffice:‑

2. The respondent is the landlord of premises bearing No.A/67. Block 'H', North Nazimabad, Karachi, which is in occupation of appellant as tenant at a monthly rent of Rs.400 excluding electricity and gas charges. The respondent requires this premises in good faith for his own occupation and the occupation of his family members. He wanted to raise one more storey to the said premises. But it was resisted by the appellant, resulting into litigation. The respondent was, therefore, left with no other option, but to seek eviction of appellant on the aforesaid ground. On 1‑I1‑1984, the respondent filed an application for ejectment against the appellant in the Court of 1Xth Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi.

3. The appellant resisted the application for ejectment by stating that his eviction was being sought with a view to let out the said premises on higher rent.

4. The respondent has examined himself (P.W.1) and his brother Mazhar‑ul‑Haque (P.W.2), while the appellant has examined himself (D‑W.1).

5. On the basis of evidence, both oral as well as documentary, the learned Rent Controller decided the issue of personal requirement against the appellant and directed his ejectment from the disputed premises within a period of 30 days. This order dated 21‑5‑1986, is the subject‑matter of the present appeal. y13

6. The respondent as his own witness (P.W.1) has testified the: circumstances leading to this litigation. According to him, there are in all 19 members of family, who are presently residing in the premises situated in P.E.C.H. Society, Karachi,,owned by his late father. The details of the family members find place in para No.2 of the affidavit‑in‑evidence, filed by respondent. The relevant extract of this affidavit is reproduced below to understand the correct position:‑‑

"2. That I require the case premises for myself and my family's use and occupation. Presently I and my family members are living in 193/R/2 PECHS, Karachi. This house of PECHS is also occupied by my two brothers namely Mazharul Haque and Inamul Haque and their families and my one sister and my late sister Khursheed Huma's son Adrian. My family consists of my wife and my four children. My eldest son Imran Ali s 14 years old, my eldest daughter Rubeca is 13 years old and my two other sons Rizwan Ali 10 years old and Farhan Ali 6 years old. My late sister Khursheed Huma's son Adrian aged 13 years is also like a son to me and he is also living with us as part of my family. Besides the above my father‑in‑law Mr. Abdul Waheed is also living with us for the last four years. He has since retired and there is nobody else to look after him except my wife and myself. As such we eight people that is myself. my wife, my four children as above, my father‑in‑law and my nephew Adrian are living together in a very congested atmosphere. My brother Mazharul Haque with his wife and four children and my brother Inamul Haque with his wife and two children besides our one sister are also living in this house i.e. 193/R/2, PECHS, Karachi. That is total 19 (Nineteen) people are living in this PECHS house

My family including me : 8 persons

Mazharul Haque's family: 6 persons

Inamul Haque's family : 4 persons

Sister : 1 persoon

-------------------------------------------------------

Total : 19 persons:'

7. Mazhar‑ul‑Haque (P.W.2), who is brother of respondent lends support to the above statement of the respondent. The statement made by these witnesses is consistent and the appellant was not able to pick holes in their testimony. The bona fide of the respondent can be judged from this fact alone that he wanted to raise construction on the first floor of the premises occupied by appellant, obviously with a view to have more accommodation to meet the growing needs of his family members. The appellant, however, put obstructions, which resulted into litigation between the parties. Admittedly the matter is sub judice before this Court and stay is operating against the respondent. The respondent was thus left with no other option, but to seek eviction of appellant to accommodate himself and his family members, who are facing acute shortage of accommodation in the premises where they are presently putting up.

8. The appellant has disputed the requirement of the respondent to occupy the premises in question on two‑fold grounds, firstly, that he was interested to get the premises vacated with a view to re‑let it on higher rent, and secondly, the need for the occupation of landlord does not include the need of his nephew and father‑in‑law. As to first of his contentions, I have carefully gone through the record and I think that there is no foundation whatever for it. Even otherwise, as observed in Mst. Roshan Ara v. Saeed Ahmad, reported in 1987 M L D 2978, this A assertion should be determined in context of provisions of section 15‑A of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, which was a safeguard for tenant against being evicted on false plea of bona fide requirement by landlord.

9. The respondent has invoked the provisions of clause (vii) of subsection (2) of section 15 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, for seeking ejectment of appellant. This clause empowers the Rent Controller to put the landlord in possession of the premises, if he requires the same in good faith for his own occupation or use or for the occupation or use of his spouse or any of his children. It is the case of respondent that he requires the disputed premises for his own occupation and the occupation of his wife, four children, one nephew, who is like his son and father‑in‑law, who has since retired and there is no body to look after him. The words "own occupation" or "for himself" cover‑ a case of landlord wanting the house as family home, whether he lives in it himself or not because a family is the unit of our civilization and to keep the family together is of high public importance. The said words should be given a fair and liberal P construction and they must be interpreted to include his family, dependents and such persons, who way be essential for the purpose of such occupation. The said words mean an occupation for himself and of all persons, who are dependent upon him. It is not the intention of the Rent Restriction laws to disrupt a family and to drive members of the family out because they start earning and are not dependent upon a member in whose name the premises stand. In order to determine what is the family or a dependent or a person essential or necessary for occupation in each case, it is proper and desirable for the Court to bear in mind the context of social order, habits and ideas of living and the socio‑religious customs of the community to which the landlord belongs. If members of a family live together, mess together and look upon themselves as a unit, the Court is entitled to consider their requirement as that of the landlord, who is seeking to eject the tenant. In considering a landlord's requirement the Court ought to take into consideration the fact that there are other persons residing with him in his present premises and whom he does not wish to turn out into the street. (See the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 by J.H. Dalal).

10. This view gets support from the case of Abdul Salam Akhtar v. Dr. Najam Pervaiz, reported in 1976 S C M R 52, in which the following observations were made by the Supreme Court:‑‑

"We are unable to agree for the personal needs of the landlord would include the need of those dependent upon him. In the present case even the personal need of the landlord is there in addition to the need of the brother. Hence it cannot be said that the eviction is required only for the need of the brother, who is not covered by the definition of "own occupation" or who did not come within the category of dependents."

11. In my humble view clause (vii) of subsection (2) of section 15 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, is illustrative and not exhaustive. As observed in Adam Ali Hassan Ali v. Mst. Rubab Bai, reported in P L D 1965 Kar. 408, the D expression "for his own occupation" is to be construed liberally and must be interpreted to include not only need of family, dependents and persons, essential for such occupation but also all other genuine requirements of landlord.

12. The learned counsel for the parties have referred to a number of authorities in support of their respective contentions, but I do not find, it necessary to discuss these authorities, because it is a question of fact, in each particular case, whether the evidence produced by the parties can or cannot be considered to be sufficient to prove a particular' issue. The evidence which has come on record proves beyond any shadow of doubt that the respondent honestly E needs his own house for a comfortable living. His desire to live m his own house is quite natural and the same cannot be denied to him only to accommodate his tenant.

13. For the above reasons the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. The appellant is, however, allowed two months' time to vacate the demised premises.

H.B.T./M‑658/K Appeal dismissed.