ABUL KALAM Versus DILSHAD

1. AJMAL MIAN, J .‑‑‑The petitioner by this petition seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 17‑10‑1988 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Sindh in F.R.A. No.547 of 1986, allowing the above appeal against the order dated 21‑7‑1986, passed by the learned VI Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller at Karachi (East) in Rent Case No.4057 of 1980, dismissing the respondent's Rent Case for ejectment on the ground of personal requirement.

2. The facts, which are to be noted, are that the respondent filed aforsaid Rent Case in respect of a flat situated on the first floor and the garage situated on the ground floor in the building, bearing No.4‑F, Commercial Area, Muhammad Ali Housing Society, Karachi, on the ground of bona fide personal requirement.

3. The above case was resisted by the petitioner. The learned Rent Controller after framing two issues and recording of evidence of the parties by his order dated 21‑7‑1986 dismissed the respondent's above Rent Case. The respondent being aggrieved by the above order filed aforesaid F.R.A. No.547 of 1986, which has been allowed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Sindh by the above judgment dated 17‑10‑1988 and the petitioner has been directed to hand over the vacant possession in two months' time. The petitioner being aggrieved by the above judgment has riled the above petition for leave.

2. We have heard Mr. Abul Khair Ansari, learned Advocate‑on‑Record for the petitioner who has urged that since it has been proved that the respondent lives with her mother, who owns a palatial bungalow, having 25 rooms, situated at Bahadurabad, Karachi, besides a bungalow situated in K.DA. Scheme No.l and as it has also been proved that the respondent's brothers and sisters are married and live separately independently, the High Court was not justified in granting the ejectment on the ground of personal requirement. However, he has not been able to show that the respondent is in occupation of any other house in Karachi owned by her. On the contrary he has admitted the factum that the respondent alongwith her son has been living with her mother for quite sometime and she continued to live with her mother even after the respondent's husband had divorced her during the pendency of the Rent Case.

4. In our view, the fact that the respondent's mother owns a palatial bungalow which fact has not been accepted by the High Court or the fact that she owns another bungalow and/or other properties situated in Karachi has no direct bearing on the question of the respondent's bona fide personal requirement. The pertinent question is as to whether the respondent is living in her own house. Once the factum that she has been living with her mother alongwith her son is proved in the absence of some reliable evidence in rebuttal, the respondent's personal bona fide requirement stands proved. We arc inclined to hold that the respondent is not under any legal or moral obligation to put up with her mother alongwith her son for all time to come. The finding of the High Court on the question of personal requirement seems to be in consonance with the evidence on record and, therefore, no exception can be taken to the same.

5. The petition has, therefore, no merits and is dismissed.

6. A.A./A‑8-16/S Petition dismissed.