FAQIR MUHAMMAD Versus ANWARULLAH
This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned VI Senior Civil Judge/ASJ/R.C (South) Karachi, dated 27‑1‑1987 passed in Rent Case No.628 of 1985 whereby the application for eviction presented by the respondent on the ground of personal need, has been allowed and the appellant has' been directed to vacate the premises within 30 days of the passing of the order. The tenant has further been authorised to receive Rs.7,000 being the deposit at the time of handing over the possession.
2. The relevant facts are these. The respondent filed an application under section 15 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter called "the Ordinance) on 10‑2‑1985 against the appellant stating, inter alia, that the premises bearing No.R.G.12‑10/1‑2 situated in Ranchore Lines Bohra Pir, Puri Bai Building Karachi (hereinafter called "the demised premises") was let out to the appellant in 1972 at a monthly rent of Rs.30 only. The demised premises, it was further stated, was required by him for his personal use as well as for the use of his children. He further pleaded that he was an old man of 69 years of age and physically unfit to go to his residence on the fourth floor of the said building daily at least 5/6 times. The appellant was requested to hand over the vacant possession through a notice, dated 24th December, 1981 but he kept him on false promises and failed to deliver the vacant possession. Hence the application was filed.
3. The appellant filed written statement denying the alleged personal bona fide need of the demised premises by the respondent. It was contended that the family members of the respondent were only 14 and not 18 as pleaded in the application, that Rs.7,000 had been paid to him as Pugree and that the application was mala fide inasmuch as the appellant had declined to accede to the request of the respondent for enhancing the rent to Rs.150 to Rs.200. 1t was also denied that the respondent was an old man of 69 years. It was also pleaded that the present accommodation on the fourth floor of the building in possession of the respondent was sufficient for him and his family need.
4. The respondent examined himself only in support of the application, whereas the appellant besides himself also examined witnesses named D.W.2 Abdul Aziz and D.W.3 Abdul Rashid. The Rent Controller vide his impugned order has allowed the application as stated above. Hence this appeal.
5. I have heard Mr. Jamaluddin for the appellant and Mr. Muhammad Sadiq, learned counsel for the respondent, and also perused the relevant record with their assistance.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant raised two‑fold contentions before me. Firstly, he urged that the Rent Controller has failed to comply with the requirements of section 19(5) of the Ordinance which provides that instead of formally framing issues arising between the parties the Rent Controller shall state them briefly in the judgment and shall record findings on each such issue separately. According to the learned counsel the issue regarding the effect of payment of Rs.7,000 as a Pugree or goodwill amount has not been made a point for determination. In his submission if the Rent Controller ,would have framed this issue and decided it in favour of the appellant then there was no course open to him but to reject the application as being not maintainable in law. Further, argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the personal need of the demised premises by the respondent and his family members has not been proved. In this behalf, he submitted that as a matter of fact the family members of the respondent were only 14 as mentioned in the written statement and not 18 as mentioned in the application. Besides, the accommodation in possession of the respondent was sufficient for the use of the 14 members of his family. In support of his first above‑noted contention the learned counsel sought to place reliance on a decision of this Court reported in P L D 1986 Kar.
16. That., was a case under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959' wherein the landlord had accepted 'Pugree' whereas in the case in hand the landlord had accepted "fixed deposit" Hence the facts of that case are quite distinguishable to the facts of the case in hand. Thus, it has, in my opinion, no application to the facts of the case in hand.
7. Mr. Muhammad Sadiq, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand supported the impugned order by contending that the respondent had proved his case as pleaded m the application. He stated that the family members of the respondent were 18 as has been mentioned in the application and deposed to by him in his affidavit‑in‑evidence as well as during cross‑examination. He also submitted that the learned Rent Controller has, on the basis of the evidence prevalent on record, rightly held that the respondent was aged about 70 years and that the requirement of the demised premises for his personal need as well as for the need of his children had been duly established. He also drew my attention to the notice dated 24‑12‑1984 served by the. respondent upon the appellant and the reply made there to by the latter.
8. Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, I am clearly of the opinion that there is no substance in this appeal and it must fail. In so far as first argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is concerned it is sufficient to mention that no specific plea against the maintainability of the application on the ground of payment of Pugree had been taken in the written statement. However, the learned Rent Controller has dealt with this aspect of the case in his order and has reached the conclusion that the sum of Rs.7,000 paid by the appellant to the respondent at the commencement of the tenancy was in fact the deposit and not the Pugree. He has further repelled the contention of the appellant, and in my opinion, rightly too, that the respondent having accepted the receipt of the deposit of Rs.7,000 notwithstanding that there was no receipt of the said amount available with the appellant, showed that he was an honest witness and did not want to make any undue advantage by omitting to mentioning the said amount in the application. The learned Rent Controller also rightly repelled the contention of the appellant about the application having been moved on mala fide ground on account of alleged enhancement of rent to Rs.150 or Rs.200 from Rs.30 per month. In his cross‑examination made to him that his family members were only 14, he has elaborately given the names and the ages of the family members who were residing with him and that the plea raised by him in his application in this behalf, thus remained unshattered.
9. It has come on record that the respondent is an old man of 70 years of age suffering from different ailments and hence there is obviously no good reason for me to disagree with the learned Rent Controller. I have perused the impugned order carefully and I find that the learned Rent Controller has dealt with the issue properly and elaborately and has taken into consideration all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case in reaching the conclusion that the demised premises is bona fidely required by the respondent for himself and his family members.
10. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case the appeal is held to be devoid of force and it is dismissed accordingly with no orders as to costs.
11. I would, however, allow four months' time to the appellant the premises subject to his depositing the monthly rent regularly, in Court by 10th of every subsequent month. If the appellant fails to comply with the condition of payment of rent, he would be liable to be evicted for forthwith from the demised premises without notice.
M.Y.H./F‑63/K Appeal dismissed.