This appeal is directed against the order dated 16th November. 1980 passed by the learned Vlllth Rent Controller at Karachi in Rent Case No. 282/1973 directing the appellant to hand over vacant possession with-- in 90 days .
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above case that the respondent filed the aforesaid ejectment case on the grounds of default, nuisance, personal requirement and unauthorised conversion of the premises from residential into commercial use. The above application was resisted by the appellant and it was, inter alia, averred that the application was filed mala fide. The learned Rent Controller on the basis of the pleadings framed 5 issues. It seems that Issues Nos. 1 and 3 rela--ting to default and pertaining to nuisance were dropped by the respondent at the time of hearing at the stage of the arguments. However, the learned Rent Controller on the ground of personal requirement as well as on the ground of unauthorised conversion of the premises from residential into commercial has allowed the application. Being aggrieved by the above order the appellant has filed the present appeal. ,;
3. (a) In support of the above appeal Mr. Mahmood Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellant, has made the following submissions :-
(i) That the application of the respondent was mala fide and, that in fact. She did not need the premises for personal requirements bona fidely.
(ii) That the finding of the learned Rent Controller on the question of unauthorised conversion/use of the premises from residential into commercial is based on surmises and conjectures and not on the evidence.
(6) On the other band Mr. S. H. Rizvi, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the application was not filed mala fide and that there was sufficient evidence on the record to conclude that the appellant had converted the use of the premises from residential into com-- mercial without respondent's permission. :, :. ,
(c) Reverting to the above first contention of Mr. Mahmood Ahmed. Learned counsel for the appellant, that the respondent did not require the premises bona fidely and her application was mala fide, it may be pertinent to observe that he has invited my attention to the fact that the- appellant had filed Rent Case No. 2005/72 for fixation of fair rent, which application was eventually allowed and the rent was fixed. He also pointed out that the respondent filed Suit No. 748/75 for declaration and permanent injunction for restraining the appellant from committing act of nuisance. A It was further pointed out by him that during the pendency of the present rent application the respondent had disconnected the electricity and water supply and that the appellant had to file case No. 913/73 for the restora--tion of the electricity and water supply, which was allowed. He has also drawn my attention to the fact that a second rent case, namely, Rent Case No. 1045/75 has also been filed by the respondent on more or less the same grounds after the filing of the above rent case, which is still pending. From the above facts, it seems that the conduct of the respon--dent has not been fair and that she has been harassing the appellant. However, the question which requires consideration is as to whether there was sufficient evidence before the learned Rent Controller to conclude that the respondent was able to prove her personal bona fide requirement. In the instant case the following facts stand proved : -
(i) that the respondent, her husband and three daughters, (One of them is married) are putting up together ;
(ii) that the accommodation in her occupation comprises of 3 rooms only on the first floor of the building ; (i.e) that the respondent's husband has been transferred from Islama--bad to Karachi after about a year or two after the filing of the above rent case ;
(iv) that the premises in dispute comprise of only one room on the roof of the first floor which is according to the appellant unplastered, without windows and the doors are without hinges.
(d) with reference to the second contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the finding of the learned Rent Controller that appellant has converted the residential premises into commercial use, it may be pertinent to observe that the appellant in his cross-examination admitted the factum that his family is residing in Rizvia Colony and that he was living alone in the premises. In my view the learned Rent Controller has rightly observed that in the absence of any evidence that the appellant has strained relations with his were, normally the appellant would live with his were and children. It may be observed that Rizvia Colony is situated not far from Nazimabad where the tenement in dispute is situated and, therefore, in the absence of any plausible explanation as to why the appel--lant is putting up separately, the inference drawn by the learned Rent Controller to the affect that he is using the room in question for other purposes than residential seems to be correct and this inference corrobora--tes the statement of the respondent to the effect that the appellant has converted the use of the residential premises into commercial. The above finding also does not call for any interference by this Court.
4. For the aforesaid reasons the appeal is dismissed, with no order as to costs. However, the appellant is granted four months' time from today to hand over the vacant possession on the condition that in case he fails to give the possession on the expiry of the above period the learned Rent Controller shall issue writ of ejectment without any further notice to the appellant and provided the appellant shall continue to depo--sit rent in terms of the Rent Controller's order.