SULEMAN GHAZI vs GHULAM HAIDER AND Another

ORDER

MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.-Leave is sought to appeal against the judgment of the Sind High Court, dated 8-9-1983 passed in the First Rent Appeal No. 655 of 1981.

2. The petitioner was the tenant of the respondents in Bungalow No. 61, Kathiawar Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Blocks Nos. 6 and 8, Karachi, at a rent of Rs. 4,000 per month. His ejectment was sought by the respondents under section 13 of the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (West Pakistan Ordinance VI) of 1959 for non-payment of rent from 1-5-1979, amounting to Rs.

12,000. The petition was contested by the petitioner. During the pendency of the ejectment application, the res--pondents, however, filed another petition under section 15 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 which came into force in November, 1979, 'on the ground of personal requirement. This petition was also con--tested by the petitioner. The learned Rent Controller, by his order dated 19-11-1981, held that the disputed premises was required by the res--pondents in good faith for their personal bona fide occupation. Dissatisfied with the order of the learned Rent Controller the petitioner filed an appeal in the Sind High Court which was dismissed vide the impugned judgment.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondents had filed Rent Case No, 3086/1979 mala fide and in law they could not file another rent case on the same ground during the pendency of the earlier case, merely by adding another ground of personal bona fide require-- ment which, on their showing, was subsisting on the date of the first rent case.

4. We have gone through the impugned judgment and find that the learned Single Judge had come to the conclusion that there is enough evidence with regard to the personal requirement of the premises by the respondent which was not successfully refuted by the petitioner. It is in the evidence that the two respondents were living in the house of their father and they were not shown to be in possession of a suitable building for their need in the same urban area as the property in question. Thus, we find no merit in this) petition which is, accordingly, dismissed.

However, the order of ejectment will not be executed for a period of four months from today provided the petitioner continues to pay the monthly rent.