' The appellant has challenged in this appeal the concurrent findings of the two Courts below on the issue of personal requirement of the respondent.
2. The application for ejectment was filed on 5th April, ,1974 by the respondent on the ground that his family consisting of nine members is facing difficulty in the present house in his occupation. The family of the respondent was described as consisted of himself, his wife, two daughters, one son and two grand-daughters. One niece and her husband. In the evidence led before the Rent Controller the respondent examined himself and stated that his son Niaz Ahmed, who is now aged abut 30 years, is likely to be married and his marriage is being postponed because of the shortage of accommodation in the present house in his occupation. It was also stated that one of the two grand-daughters of the respondent from his predeceased daughter who are living with the respondent was suffering from T. B. And that doctor had advised for a better accommodation for the ailing grand-daughters. Apart from the evidence of the respondent his son Niaz Ahmed also appeared in the witness-box and stated that the present accommodation in occupation of the respondent was quite insufficient compared to his needs and that his marriage was being postponed because of the shortage of the accommodation. The respondent in his evidence before the Controller stated that he was not aware of the accommodation, in occupation of the respondent as he had not seen the house where the respondent was residing. It was, however, asserted before the Rent Controller that the present application was mala fide as respondent's main intention was to let gut the premises at a higher rent to some one else after ejecting the appellant. The Rent Controller after considering the evidence came to the conclusion that the premises were bona fide required by the respondent for his occupation as well as for occupation of his family members and that the present accommodation in his occupations was hardly sufficient.
The finding of the Rent Controller was affirmed by the 1st Appellate Court who also reached the same conclusion,. After examining the evidence on record.
3. I have heard Mr. Mumtazuddin, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Ishtiaq Ali, Advocate for the respondent.
4. Mr. Mtimtazuddin mainly contended that the requirement of a landlord contemplated within the purview of sections 13 (3) (a) (i) is either his own requirement or the requirement of any of his children. It is contended that the words "his own occupation" in section 13 (3) (a) (i) will not include the grand-daughter's and niece and her husband though they may be residing with the landlord. It was further contended that the present accommodation in occupation of the respondent was not only sufficient but also better in many respects than the accommodation for which the landlord had applied for eviction. As to the marriage of the son of the respondent, it was contended that there was no proof available on record. I have gone through the evidence recorded in the case and found that the personal requirement pleaded by the landlord was not for accommodating his neice, her husband or the grand-daughters alone. The personal requirement was pressed for accommodating his son aged 30 years who was going to be married as well as for providing better atmosphere for the grand-daughter who was dependants an landlord and was ailing and needed better accommodation. I am of the view that in these circumstances and the evidence on record the conclusion reached by the Rent Controller as well as 1st Appellate Court is fully supported by the evidence on record. I have not been able to discover any misreading in the evidence or any substantial error in the procedure provided by law which have affected the ultimate result of the case on merit. It is not denied by the learned counsel for appellant that total accommodation with the respondent was 3 rooms measuring '14' x 12', 8' x 8' and 8' x 8' with amenities of life. This accommodation cannot be described as sufficient for a family of 9 members.
Specially when one of them is going to be married and one is suffering from T. B. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the case of Haji Ghulam Muhammad v. Abdul Qadir (1) in support of his contention. All that was said in the aforesaid case was that the personal requirement of a landlord cannot be based on mere expression of desire by the landlord and that a landlord seeking ejectment of the tenant has to further establish good faith and bona fides of his requirement. The proposition laid down in the above case, is not disputed. However, bona fides and good faith of the landlord has to be judged in each case with reference to the evidence on record.
The learned counsel for the appellant was unable to demonstrate from the evidence on record lack of good faith on the part of the respondent in seeking ejectment of appellant from the premises on the ground of personal requirement. The conclusion arrived at by the Rent Controller and the 1st Appellate Court in my opinion are in accord with the evidence on record. Even if another view of the evidence was possible that by itself could not be a ground for interference by this Court with the concurrent finding of facts in II Appeal. Mr. Ishtiaq Ali, the learned counsel for the respondent, has referred me the cases of Nooruddin and others v. Asghar Ali (2) wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court considered the demand of a landlord for extra accommodation on the ground of marriage of member of the family as a bona fide requirement. The learned counsel also referred to Abdus Salam v. Dr. Najan Pariyo (3) in this case their {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) PLD 1975 Lah. 200 (2) 1968 SCMR 1087 (3) 1976 SCM R 52 {{FOOT NOTE}} Lordships of Supreme Court while repelling the contentions that the need of a disabled brother was not covered by the provision of W. P. U. R. Ordinance, 1959, observed at P./53 as under :- "We are unable to agree for the personal needs of the landlord would include th'u need of those depended upon him."
' The learned counsel for the appellant was unable to show from the record that the two grand- daughters of the landlords were not dependent on him or that they were not staying with him. No other point was raised.
' There is no substance in the appeal which is dismissed with costs. However, I grant for months' time to the appellant to vacate the premises.