1. ' This second appeal is filed against the order dated 1lth December, 1973 of learned Ind Additional District Judge, Larkana whereby order dated 31st May, 1972 of Rent Controller granting ejectment under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 has been set aside.
2. ' Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that Haji Lal Bux appellant/ landlord purchased property bearing Survey Nos. 2456 and 2457 in Ward Larkana in the year 1962 from Settlement Department and at that time Mistri Allandad respondent/tenant was already in occupation of the premises composed of residential house and the shop. The landlord served notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Comp. And Rehab.) Act, 1958, whereby the respondent became statutory tenant. Two rent cases No, 131/62 and 189/64 were filed by the landlord against the said tenant, which ended in compromise. The present rent case, out of which this second appeal has arisen is filed in 1970 as rent case No, 66/1970 by the landlord for eviction of tenant on the grounds of requirement of premises for personal use and damage caused to the property. During the proceedings preliminary issue was framed whether notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons Act was served or not on which the finding of Rent Controller was negative against which appeal was filed before the learned District Judge, who passed consent order on 25th June, 1971 by allowing the appeal and directed the Rent Controller to decide remaining issues between the parties. Consequently two issues were framed to the effect whether landlord required premises bonafidely for his personal use and whether tenant had impaired utility of the premises. Evidence was produced by the parties and ultimately the Rent Controller decided issue with regard to the personal bona fide use of the premises in favour of the landlord and ordered eviction. Second issue with regard to imparing the utility of premises finding of the Rent Controller was that it was not proved. In appeal filed by the tenant, the learned Additional District Judge, reversed the finding of the Rent Controller on the issue of personal bona fide use of the premises and allowed the appeal.
3. The second issue was not pressed before the Ist Appellate Court. In this second appeal the point for determination is whether evidence produced by the parties has been misread as the findings of the two Courts below are in conflict with each other on the question whether the premises are required bona fidely for personal use of the Landlord.
4. ' Appellant/landlord has stated in his application under section 13 of the Ordinance that he has got a large family and requires premises in good faith and reasonably for his own use and occupation.
5. Landlord has examined himself and deposed before the Rent Controller that he resided at Qambar alongwith his brother Qadir Bux. The accommodation for both these families is joint and consists of two houses, both of which consist of two large rooms and one small room. One of the large room is divided with common courtyard. The area of one house is 160 sq. Yds. And the area of other house is only 60 sq. Yds. He has further deposed that he and his wife have five sons and four daughters.
6. He has also a widowed sister living with him alongwith three daughters. His eldest son is married and lives with him alongwith his three children and wife. His brother Qadir Bux lives in the same composite accommodation with his wife, two sons and six daughters. His brother Qadir Bux and his family have separate cooking arrangement but the use of the accommodation is common because the houses are joint. The landlord has further testified that he is living with extreme difficulty and in such conjested atmosphere that in summer some of the inmates of the house sleep in verandah and others on terrace. If a guest comes he is made to sleep outside the house. It is further stated by the landlord that due to this congestion the relations between his family and that of his brother have become less-congenial. The children often quarrel among themselves, in the result whereof his wife and that of his brother have ceased to speak with each other. It is in these circumstances that he requires the premises in question bonafidely for his personal use and for the occupation of his children and other dependents. He has also stated that he has no other house in Qambar. From the above narration taken from the evidence of the appellant it appears clearly that the case of the landlord is of extreme difficulty. The landlord is further supported by his witness Illahi Bux son of Yar Muhammad who resides in the same neighbourhood and is the friend of the family. He has fully supported the landlord about the hardship with which the landlord is confronted so far the residential accommodation is concerned. The landlord has produced a number of documents in his evidence, which are not relevant for the purpose of present discussion.
7. He has also produced Permanent Transfer Deed and true copy of the extract of City Survey record which are Exhs. Nos. 32, 33 and 34.
8. ' As against this the case of the respondent/tenant is denial simpliciter in the written objections before the Rent Controller. He has further stated therein that the landlord resides in Qambar and attends to his business there. He does not have a large family and further the application for ejectment has been filed by him in order to enhance the rent. He has produced true copy of extract from C. S. C.-4 Register which is Exh. 40 on the record. This document has been allowed to be produced with the consent of the parties. It shows that Ghulam Abbas is transferee of property No, 644/337 in Ward B, Qambar which he has purchased on 21st May, 1960 for a price of Rs, 400.
9. Ghulam Abbas is son of appellant. It is asserted by respondent in his evidence before the trial Court that Ghulam Abbas owns a house. The house mentioned above admittedly is not situate in Larkana and according to Exh. 40 is in occupation of Suleman son of Gural. The respondent has not said in his evidence that this house in occupation of Ghulam Abbas. Cross-examination of appellant Haji Lal Bux is also very sketchy and does not throw doubt on the assertion of the appellant that he needs the premises bonafidely for his own occupation or occupation of his children. Questions have been suggested to the appellant in cross-examination that he has more than one house at Qambar which is denied by him. Appellant had admitted that he owns C. S. No, 1363 at Qambar which is not a house but is a cattle-pen where he tethers his cattle and stores fire-wood. The suggestion made to the appellant that he had filed applications previously also against the tenant for enhancement of rent, has been denied and that the perusal of the documents available on the record shows that previous applications were also filed for possession on the same ground. The respondent has not examined any other witness in support of his case. It would not be out of place to mention here that there is nothing adverse in the cross-examination of witness Illahi Bux, who has supported the appellant to doubt his veracity. It is on the appraisal of this evidence that the learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the premises in-question are required by the landlord bonafidely for his personal use and occupation and that of his children. The reasons given by the Ist Appellate Court for setting aside the finding of the Rent Controller on this issue, are not supported by the record and are conjectural in nature.
10. ' That Ist Appellate Court has observed in the judgment as under :- "The statement of respondent Haji Allah Bux did not give any indication that he had any intention to shift from Qambar to Larkana. He made general remark that the disputed property was bonafidely required for his personal use and for the occupation of his children, wife and other dependents. He has not explained as to how he would keep his wife and children at Larkana while be himself was settled and doing business at Qambar. Similarly there is no indication that his son Ghulam Abbas had plans to settle down at Larkana. His son Ghulam Abbas is married man and is not dependent upon him, moreover said Ghulam Abbas also owns property in Qambar Town. Similarly elder brother of respondent Haji Lal Bux is not dependent upon him and he is not bound to keep his brother and his family with him. The disputed property is comprised of a house and attached shop.
11. The respondent did not utter a single word that why the shop is required by him."
12. It is obvious that the Ist Appellate Court has been impressed by other extraneous considerations.
13. The legal position with regard to subsection (3)(a) of section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 is very clear and the law permits landlord to apply for ejectment of tenant from the premises in the case of a residential building if he requires the same in good faith for his own occupation or for the occupation of any of his children provided he is not occupying any other residential building suitable for his needs at the time in the same urban area in which such building is situated. It is very conspicuous that in the instant case both residential buildings are not situate in the same urban areas as the landlord lives in Qambar and the premises in dispute are situate in Larkana. Secondly it is very clear that premises can be required by the landlord for his own occupation or for the occupation of any of his children and the law does not say that the children must be dependent upon the landlord. If the premises are required for occupation of Ghulam Abbas, who is a grown-up and married son of the landlord, there is absolutely no bar in the law for the landlord to put his son in occupation of the disputed premises.
14. It is right to say that in the instant case the landlord has not specifically stated whether he would himself occupy the premises in question or would ask his son to occupy the same. The fact cannot be lost sight that proceedings before the Rent Controller are of the nature of quasi-judicial, where technicalities of law are not expected to be observed strictly. Strict standard of pleadings, as required in the normal Courts, cannot be accepted in the rent proceedings. Reference can be made to the case of Punjab Hardwarre and Machine Tools Ltd. v. Wazir All (1). In the evidence the landlord has given satisfactory account of the plight and extremly difficult and congested atmosphere in which a very large family is squeezed into a very small accommodation. In view of this evidence the need of the landlord is certainly bona fide because he wants to reduce the tension and send part of the family to the premises in question. The expression "for his own occupation" under section 13(3)(1)(a) in the said' Ordinance is to he considered liberally and must be interpreted to include not only need of family, dependents and persons essential for such occupation but also of other genuine requirements of landlord. The words "for his own occupation" which occur in paragraph (a) should be taken to include all genuine requirements of the landlord and not be restricted to the requirement of a shelter for his own body and bodies of his children.
15. This is indicated by the words "suitable for his needs" which occur in paragraph (b). The needs of the landlord cannot be discriminated so as to separate the inner needs and outer needs of his body because both of them are projected on his environments. In considering the landlord's requirements the Court ought to take into consideration the fact that there are other persons residing with him in his present E premises and whom he does not wish to turn out into street. Such view is taken in the case of Adam Ali v. Rabab Bai (2). In these circumstances no fault can be found in the pleadings and evidence of the appellant that he has not pin-pointed whether he would himself go and live in the premises in question or send his son. Both these remedies are allowed by law specifically and the evidence is elaborate on the point that the premises in his occupation are not suitable for his needs when such a large number of the family members are to be accommodated for which the joint houses are grossly insufficient. The landlord has not stated that he wants to put his brother in possession of the house or his widowed sister but he has specifically stated that either he would himself go and reside there or would put his married son in possession of that house. The considerations which have weighed with the Ist Appellate Court that how it is possible for the landlord to carry on business in Qambar and settle down in Larkana or for that matter his son to settle down in Larkana are not warranted and are outside the scope of the theme of the Ordinance. The landlord has purchased the property in question and has every right to live there if the relevant requirements are fulfilled. How he will manage in his own problem with which the Courts are not concerned. In any case judicial notice can be taken of the fact that Qambar is hardly 14 miles away from Larkana and buses and other modes of transport are (1) PLD 1976 Kar.
16. 233 (2) PLD 1975 Kar. 408 easily available between these two places. People have their own peculiar reasons to live away from their places of vocation and this consideration is not an obstacle particularly when distances have become short to easy availability of quick transport. In any case the Courts must confine themselves with the policy and provisions laid down under the law without taking recourse to other extraneous considerations.
17. An objection was also raised that the premises in question are composite in nature and have residential accommodation and also a shop 1 which the landlord has not expressed pointedly that he needs the shop for commercial basis. For this the answer is that in the case the accommodation is composite in nature it is to be treated as residential. Reliance is placed on the decision in the case of Muhammad Amin Beg v. Pir Muhammad Khan (2).
18. ' It was also contended on behalf of the appellant that there is nothing in the evidence to show that the rented premises arc better than the premises in occupation of the landlord. P. T. D. Exh. 32 on the record shows that houses Nos. 2456 and 2457 situate in Ward 13 Larkana had been transferred to the respondent but the area is not mentioned. The relevant provision of the said Ordinance does not require that the premises sought to be occupied must be better than the premises in occupation. The only requirement is that the landlord is not occupying any residential building, suitable for his needs at the time, in the same urban area in which such building is situated. There is ample evidence on the record that not only the residential building in occupation of the landlord is not in the same urban area but also is utterly unsuitable for his needs as such the landlord is justifiably entitled in the circumstances o the case to require the premises in question in good faith for his own occupation or for the occupation of any of his children.
19. ' From the facts and reasons mentioned above, I find that there has been misreading of evidence by the Ist Appellate Court as such his order is set aside and the order passed by the Rent Controller of eviction is restored. Respondent/tenant is directed to hand over the vacant possession of the premises in-question to the appellant/landlord within four months from now and he would also pay the rent for this period to the landlord.