AZIZULLAH KHAN Versus NAZIR AHMAD

JUDMENT

This appeal under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, is directed against the order dated 15-5-1988, passed by Miss Anis Tahir Hussain, Vth Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller (East), Karachi, thereby allowing the application for ejectment filed by respondent against the appellant.

2. The appellant is the tenant of the respondent in respect of front portion of the premises bearing No. 84, Banglore Town, Karachi, at a monthly rent of Rs.700. On 28-1-1986, the respondent filed an application for ejectment against the appellant on the ground of personal requirement i.e. for the need of his wife, who is a patient of heart and blood pressure, for the need of his three sons, two of them are to be married and four daughters, two of them are married.

3. The appellant has denied the averments made by the respondent in his application for ejectment. According to him the illness of the wife of respondent has no concern with the bona fide requirements of the premises in his occupation by the respondent. It is also pleaded by him that the respondent owns another house in Landhi, where some of his family members are residing.

4. The parties went to trial on the following issues:-.

(i) Whether applicant requires the case premises in good faith for his personal use and for the use of his children ?

(ii) What should the order be ?

5. The parties have examined themselves and then closed their side.

6. On the basis of the evidence available on record, the learned Rent Controller decided issue No. 1, against the appellant and consequently directed his ejectment from the demised premises, hence the present appeal.

7. I have heard Mr. Bilgrami, learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent in person.

8. Admittedly the half portion of this premises is in occupation of the respondent where he is putting up with his family members. The respondent has sought eviction of the appellant on account of growing needs of his family members. The portion in occupation of the appellant was rented out to him in the year 1974, when the children of the respondent were minors. They have now grown up. Admittedly his sons Amir Ahmad and Aziz Ahmad are of marriageable age. There is also no dispute that two of the daughters of respondent have married. It is also the case of the respondent that his wife is a cardiac patient and she requires proper 'accommodation. Bearing in mind the above compelling needs of the respondent, I am satisfied that he requires the premises in occupation of the appellant bona fide in good faith. While determining .the question of requirement, the Rent Controller must take into consideration the new requirements of the landlord with particular reference to his desire to have a better living.

9. The appellant has challenged the requirement of the respondent to occupy his own premises mainly on the ground that he has got another house in Landhi, where other members of his family reside. The house at Landhi admittedly belongs to the wife of respondent, where his- married daughter is residing. The respondent has got no other house except the one under dispute and he cannot be denied to occupy his own premises only to accommodate his tenant who is occupying the premises for the last 15 years with no increase in rent.

10. The evidence which has come on record shows that the present accommodation consisting of two bedrooms in occupation of the respondent is not sufficient to meet his requirements. The marriages of his two sons are held up for want of accommodation, and in such a situation the finding of the learned Rent Controller that the premises in dispute is required by the respondent in good faith is not open to exception.

11. The plea of the appellant that the accommodation in occupation of the respondent is sufficient is not borne out from the record. The respondent is the person to decide about the sufficiency of accommodation, who has successfully established his bona fide requirement. The appeal has, therefore, no merits and is dismissed with no cost. The appellant is allowed two months' time to vacate the demised premises.

M.Y.H/A-559/K

Appeal dismissed.