The appellant has challenged in this appeal the order of the Rent Controller, dismissing her application for ejectment on the ground of personal and bona fade requirement and non- payment of rent. At the hearing of this appeal Mr. Samiuddin Sami, the learned counsel for the appellant made a statement before me that in so far the ground of non--payment of rent is concerned he does not press this appeal. He accordingly pressed his case only on the ground of personal and bona fide requirement of the appellant. The learned counsel for the parties have filed a joint application under Order XLI, rule 27, C. P. C. Praying that document Annexures "B" to "D" filed alongwith the memo. Of appeal be taken on record and exhibited as additional evidence in the case. The consent application has accordingly been granted by me and the following documents filed alongwith .The memo. Of appeal as Annexures --`B" to "D" are brought on record
(i) Photostat copy of the sale deed in present .Of the house No. B-72, Block, H, North Nazimabad, Karachi.
(ii) Photostat copy of the extract from the PT-I, Register in respect of house No.'B42, H.
(i.e) Photostat copy of the first page of Ration Card bearing No. 114134-A, in the name of Muhammad Aqil Qureshi.
(iv) Photostat copy of Nikahnama dated 28-3-1979.
2. - It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Rent Controller while rejecting the application of the appellant on the ground of personal and bona fide requirement erred in holding that the appellant, failed to produce any sound evidence of her shifting to Karachi from Sialkot. It is further contended that the learned Rent Controller, was in error in holding that on account of sale agreement which was entered into between the appellant and some other person for sale of the house the needs expressed by the appellant was not a bona fide one. The appellant in order to prove her case before the Rent Controller examined herself, her brother Muhammad Aqil.Quresbi, with whom she is allegedly residing at present, her son Muhammad Alim who has been recently married at Karachi on 28-3-1979 and the Estate broker Kokab Jemal. The respondent examined himself in rebuttal.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and consider--ing evidence on record I am of the view that this appeal should be accepted and application of the appellant on the ground of personal requirement be allowed. The applicant Mst. Anwar Sultana, in her statement before the Court state' on oath that at the time she purchased the property, which is the subject-matter of dispute in this case, she was residing at Sialkot. She. Further stated that she has four unmarried sons out of whom two sons are residing with her while other two are in service on ship. The ages of the two sons residing with the landlady is given as 24 and 21 years. She claims to have shifted to Karachi in the year 1976 and since then she is staying with her brother Muhammad Aqil Qureshi (P.
W. 2). In her examination-in-chief, she further stated that on her coming to Karachi she asked the respondent to vacate the premises who demanded a sum of Rs. 15.000 but' she offered Rs. 10,000.
In her cross-examination she denied the sugges--tion that the case has been filed with the object of increasing rent. She however, admitted that she executed a sale agreement in respect of the premises in dispute through Medina Estate Agency, because the opponent was not vacating the premises. She also admitted that the sale agreement was also published in the paper. She further stated in her cross-examination that at present she is not willing to sell the pre--mises as she now needs the premises for her own use and occupation. She denied the suggestion that the house where she is residing presently is her- own house. One of her sons Muhammad Alim, it is stated in her cross-examination, got married. She denied the suggestion that the premises in dispute is not sufficient for her needs. She also denied the suggestion that she wanted to eject the respondent only to sell the house in dispute at a higher price. Muhammad Aqil Qureshi (P. W. 2) who is brother of the appellant also supported the appellant on all points but be too admitted in the cross- examination that the agreement of sale in respect of property was entered into about three years back when the appellant came to Karachi. He, however, denied the suggestion that the appellant wanted to increase rent. He stated further that the appellant and her sobs are presently staying with him and that he is facing difficulties to accommodate them in his own, house. He denied the suggestion that the applicant wants to eject then respondent from the house in' order to sell the house. He stated that his house consists of only three bed rooms where as many as 8 persons are residing at present. With regard to the agreement of sale executed by the appellant this witness stated that the appellant entered into this agreement as the respondent was not vacating the premises, therefore, the appellant decided to purchase another house for his personal use by selling the house in dispute. He also stated that he was facing difficulties on account of accommodation the appellant and her sons in his house. Muhammad Alim, the son of the appellant stated in his evidence that his two brothers are in service on ship and that the appellant shifted to Karachi in the year 1976. And she needs the premises for her personal and bona de needs. He denied the suggestion in cross-examination that the premises were not required by the applicant for her use and for the use of her sons or that the respondent is being ejected from the premises with the object of selling the house. Kokab Jamal, the Estate broker. Through whom the premises was let out to the respondent supported the plea of personal and bona fide needs of the appellant but he too in .His cross-examination admitted that the premises were once subject of an agreement of sale which did not materialize. After reading the evidence as a whole I am of the view that there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the applicant had shifted to Karachi from Sialkot and that she is living with her brother at Karachi. The burden of proving that the applicant is living in own house was on the respondent in view of the categori--cal denial of the appellant in cross-examination. The appellant along--with the memo of appeal has filed a photostat copy of the original sale deed dated 26-9-1973 Annexure "B" which has been brought on record by consent of the parties. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the sale deed referred to above relates to the property where the appellant is presently residing with his brother Muhammad Aqil Qureshi. This sale deed is in the name of Mst. Iqbal Qureshi were of Muhammad Aqil Qureshi. The photostat of the extract from property register in respect of this house showed that the property is in the self-occupation of the owner. The Nikahnama of Muhammad Alim, produced in appeal shows his address of North Nazimabad and is dated 28-3-1979. There is also now on record in this appeal Ration Card No. 114134 which is in the name of Muhammad Aqil Qureshi, the brother of the appellant and shows the number of family members as 9. On consideration of the entire evidence in the case I am convinced that the appellant has succeeded in proving her personal and bona fide requirement for the house. The learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the house in respect of which the. Application for ejectment has been made is not sufficient for the requirement of the appellant as it has only two rooms. The further contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that in view of the admission made by the appellant and her witnesses that there was an agreement of sale between her and another person for sale of the house in dispute at one stage the Rent Controller was justified in doubting the bona fides of the appellant for filing the ejectment case against the respondent. In. So far the argument of the learned counsel with regard to the insufficiency of the accommoda--tion in the house with regard to the personal needs of the appellant is concerned. It has come. In :the evidence that the appellant does not own any other house in the area. It is also in the evidence that she is presently residing in a house owned by her brother where 8 persons are residing and the total accommodation available there is of 3 rooms only. In these circumstances it cannot be said that the accommodation in the house in dispute is insufficient for the needs of the appellant. Apart from it, if the appellant has only one house and she wants to occupy the same for her personal needs the question of insufficiency or other--were of accommodation is hardly relevant in such circumstances. A far as the objection of the learned counsel for the respondent with regard to the attempt of appellant to sell the house on a previous occasion is concerned. I may say that this fact by itself alone is not c sufficient to prove that the application for ejectment on the ground of personal requirement lacked bona fides. The agreement of sale has not been produced on record and the appellant and all other witnesses categorically stated on oath that the appellant has no intention to sell the house as she wants to occupy the same herself. The law provides sufficient safeguard for a tenant who is ejected from the premises on the ground of personal requirement of landlord, if the landlady does not occupy the premises herself after getting it vacated from the tenant on that ground. The apprehension expressed by the learned counsel for the respondent that the appellant may not occupy the premises herself after ejecting the respondent from the premises is, therefore, ill founded. I accordingly accept this appeal, reverse the finding of the Rent Controller, on the ground of personal and bona fide requirement and grant the ejectment application accordingly. The respondent is allowed four months time to vacate the premises subject to payment deposit of monthly rent regularly during the period. There will be no order as to costs.