This appeal raises a very short question as to whether the appellant could be deprived of his own property by the Courts below on the ground that the house belonging to the appellant and rented to the respondent was too small. In nutshell the point raised is that the Rent Controller could not be made the Judge of the needs of the appellant. The circum--stances in which the question has arisen are that the appellant filed a petition for eviction of the respondent from property hearing No. SE. VI 35-S-8F, Hussain Street, Nai Abadi, Garhi Shahu, Lahore. The respondent was in occupation of the said property as a tenant of the appellant on a monthly rent of Rs.
30. The petition for eviction proceeded on the ground of damage to the property and bona fide personal need of the appellant and his children. The respondent contested the application and asserted that the petition had been filed solely with a view to increase the rent. The learned Rent Controller, Lahore vide his order dated 24th January, 1975 dismissed the application by observing that the house in which the appellant was residing at present contained one room. The son of the appellant also owned a car. The question was whether this one room quarter could not be found to be sufficient for his needs. The appeal filed before the learned Additional District Judge was also dismissed on 9th March, 1976. The learned Additional District Judge affirmed the findings of the learned Rent Controller.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant was living in a rented house. In paragraph 4 of the petition it was stated by the appellant that he alongwith his male children were putting in a rented premises and the order of eviction had been passed against the appellant and his son separately and it was for this reason that they required the house for their personal need. In the written reply filed by the respondent it was stated that the ejectment petitions mentioned in paragraph 4 were collusive and had been got filed from their respective landlords in order to create a ground for eviction. It was further stated that the quarter in question was situate in a most backward area and it was not befitting the standard of the appellant to occupy the same. I inquired from the learned counsel for the appellant as to what was the fate of the eviction applications to which he replied that the orders of eviction had already been passed and that the appellant has now to take resort in a house which belonged to his daughter-in-law and that his son also lived there. The eviction had been refused only on the ground that the son of the appellant owned a car and was living in a spacious house. The fact that the appellant is now residing in a house belonged to his daughter-in-law was not denied. In the circumstances the averments contained in paragraph 4 of the petition had been proved to be correct and the -eviction Petitions could not be said to be collusive. Both the Courts below have not adverted to the evidence on record only on the assumption that the appellant has spacious accommodation. It was however conceded that the appellant and his son were occupying rented premises. Barkat Hussain (A. W. 2) deposed that the appellant was his tenant in respect of the property situate at 2, Ghari Shahu, Lahore. This version was also supported by Amin Khan A.W.
3. From the admission of the respondent as well as the two witnesses produced on record it is abundantly clear that the appellant was living in a rented house. The respondent appearing as his own witness as R.W. 4 did not contradict this fact. It is, therefore, established that the appellant was living in a rented house at the time of the filing of the eviction petition.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant has cited Abdul Salam Akhtar v. Dr. Najam Parvez (1) in support of his contention that the appellant being in possession of rented premises he could get the house in dispute vacated for his own occupation. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in this case clearly observed that the requirement of law that the landlord (1976 SCMR 52) should not be in occupation of another residential building suitable for his need at the time does not cover rented premises. It was further observed by their Lordships that in case otherwise the result would be that no landlord would be able to get his own premises vacated for his own occupation unless he can show that he is actually on the street and has no place to live at all. These observations were given in almost similar circumstances of the personal requirement and as such are reprodu--ced below "The next contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that since the landlord was living in rented premises, he was in occupation of another residential building suitable for his needs in the same urban area and, therefore, he was not entitled to evict the petitioner. The requirement that the landlord should not be in occupation of another residential building suitable for his need at the time does not, in our view, extend to cover rented premises for otherwise the result would be that no landlord would be able to get his own premises vacated for his own occupation unless he can show that he is actually on the streets and has no place to live at all. It would be more reasonable to hold that the other residential accommodation, which the landlord is occupying at the time, must be shown to be his own and not merely rented premises."
This judgment was further affirmed by the learned Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Aziz and another v. Muhammad Ibrahim (PLD 1977 SC 442) wherein the term `building' as used in section 13
(3) (a) (ii) (b) was interpreted by their Lordships to mean a building owned by landlord and it was held that the same would not extend to cover rented premises.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the .Other hand, relied on Muhammad Siddiq v. Abdul Hameed (PLD 1976 Kar. 696). In this case both the building in occupation of the landlord and the one in occupation of the tenant belonged to the landlord himself. The landlord in this case made a statement before the Court that he was living in two room quarter allotted to him and the flat in dispute also consisted of two rooms and as such it was held that the burden of proof was on the landlord to show that the premises in his occupation was not suitable for his needs when admittedly both the accommodations were equal. This judgment has no relevancy to the facts of the present case as the premises in occupa--tion of the appellant were rented premises and has already been evicted therefrom and is at present putting up in a room with his daughter in-law. It cannot be said that at the time when the appellant filed a petition he was in occupation of a building in the same urban area. Respectfully following the dictum of their Lordships as contained in the two judgments referred to above this appeal is accepted. However, the parties shall bear their own costs. Since the respondent is an old man and shall require some time to find out alternative accommodation he is allowed four months time to deliver vacant possession to the appellant.