1. The appellant Jamait has filed the instant appeal against the order of the Third Rent Controller, Karachi dated 2nd February, 1981, under which they were died to hand over the vacant possession of the premises in question to the respondent within a period of one month of the order.
2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the respondent instituted against the appellant Rent Case No. 479/78 seeking its eviction from premises No. G-1 on the ground floor of the building on plot bearing Survey No. 31-P, Sheet R. C. 4 at Aja Maojee Street, Ranchore Lines, Karachi on the ground of default in payment of rent and personal requirement in good faith. The Controller found the issue with regard to default in payment of rent against the respondent but decided the issue with regard to personal requirement in good faith in favour of the respondent. Since no appeal was filed regarding the finding on the issue of default the only issue to be considered in this appeal is whether the respondent requires the premises bona fide and in good faith.
3. Mr. Syed Inayatali, the learned counsel for the appellant, has raised the following contentions :----- --
(1) That the premises on lease with the appellant Jamait are nonresiden--tial premises and therefore, despite the existence of good faith, cannot be given to the respondent for residential purposes.
(2) That the application for eviction was barred by doctrine of res judicata as earlier such applications had been dismissed.
(3) That on the evidence on record no case for personal requirement had been made out.
4. With regard to contention No. 1. It is apparent from a perusal of the record that the premises in question were not being used for purpose of business and trade, and it is the case of the appellant that the same are being used for a school of religious teaching and occasionally for a residential purpose inasmuch as it is admitted position that occasionally members of the Jamait reside therein. It is also apparent from the evidence on the record that the respondent also desires to use the premises for the purposes of office and also for residence. It is therefore pertinently argued by respondent Parvez Akhtar Ahmed, who is himself an Advocate that the premises could not be considered to have been rented out solely for the purpose of business or trade and the same having been used and let for composite purpose viz. Partly for business and partly for residence he was entitled to have the tenant evicted for his own personal residence which actually also included the use of the premises as an office. The plea with regard to composite use has been based by the respondent on the very admission of the Secretary of the appellant Jamait that in cases of emergency or accidents the Jamait allows their members to reside in the rooms for some days at a time.
5. The instant appeal was filed under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, and although the impugned order of the Controller was under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, under section 27 (3) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 the proceedings and orders made in the case shall, for all purposes, have the effect as proceedings taken or orders made under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, which makes no distinction in cases of eviction, when the landlord requires the premises in good faith for his own occupation or use, between residential and non-residential premises.
6. With regard to contention Nos. 2 and 3, the personal requirement of a landlord is not a constant factor and may differ from time to time. It is clear from the evidence on record that at the time the respondent filed the first application for ejectment he was a student residing with his parents in the premises G-2 which has limited accommodation being one room tenement. The circumstances when the second application on which the impugned order has been passed was filed were totally different in that the respondent was and is now a practising lawyer. There is evidence on record not only of the respondent but also of his fiancee Miss Surriya Qamar, also an Advocate, that they want to get married and therefore require additional accommodation. The need for personal requirement is therefore very much in good faith and bona fide as a young married couple cannot in decency live in the same room with their widowed mother.
7. The respondent has also made it very clear that he is an old resident of the locality and as lawyer most of his clients are from the same locality. His need for an office in the locality is therefore of great importance to him. The aforesaid need could also be considered to be bona fide and in good faith. The argument that he used to reside with his mother for a long time in the same room therefore would not apply under the changed circumstances of the case. The learned Controller in the impugned order has dealt with au these aspects of the case and has arrived at the finding that the premises are required by the landlord bona fide in good faith, and for the reasons given no interference with the aforesaid finding in appeal is indicated. I therefore find no substance in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.
8. Mr. Syed Inayatali, Advocate for the appellant pointed out that there is a school for religious teaching in the premises is question and therefore had prayer on behalf of the appellant Jamait that in case the appeal is dismissed some time should be allowed enabling the Jamait to make alternate arrange--ment for the school. It is therefore hereby directed that the appellant should hand over vacant possession of the premises within three months of the date of this order.