' This first rent appeal is directed against the order dated 30-4-1981 passed by the learned IX Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi, in rent case No, 463/80 ordering ejectment of the appellant on the ground of personal requirement of the respondent.
' The brief facts leading to the filing of the above appeal are that the respondent had let out the bungalow in question under a .Tenancy agreement dated 1st July, 1975 at the rate of Rs, 500 per month. It seems that the respondent was residing in England. He filed the present application on the ground of personal requirement and averred that he intends to come back to Pakistan and settle in Pakistan permanently with his wife and, therefore, needs his own house. The above application was resisted by the present appellant. Later alia, it was pleaded that the rate of rent was Rs, 500 and not Rs, 800 per month as was averred in para. 2 of the rent application. It was further averred that as a matter of fact the appellant had paid Rs, 300 per month towards the fixed deposit for the last 8 months and that till the filing of the written statement he had paid Rs, 2,400. It seems that in support of the application the applicant examined his attorney Sulaiman Peerani and Mst. Zubaida Noor Muhammad wife of the respondent, whereas the appellant examined himself and his son. On the basis of the evidence recorded and on hearing of the case the learned Rent Controller allowed the rent application the appellant being aggrieved by the above order has filed the present appeal.
2. In support of the above appeal Mr. Mumtaz Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellant has made the following submissions :-
(i) That the learned Rent Controller failed to decide the rate of rent and the question of return of the security deposit and therefore the order is liable to be set aside ;
(ii) That the personal bona fide requirement of the respondent was not proved.
3. On the other hand it has been urged by Mr. Afzal Bh oy, learned counsel for the respondent that as the ejectment application was filed on the ground of personal bona fide requirement, the learned Rent Controller was not required to determine the rate of rent. It was further urged by him that on the basis of the evidence on record the personal bona fide requirement of the respondent stands proved.
4. Reverting to the first contention of Mr. Mumtaz Ahmed, it may be observed that the ejectment application was filed on the ground of personal bona fide requirement and not on the ground of default and, therefore, the variance on the question of rate between the parties was not an issue which was to be determined, particularly when no rent order was passed under section 16 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. It may be observed that in case the respondent would have obtained an order under section 16 of the Ordinance for depositing of the arrears of rent, under sub section (3) of the above section the Rent Controller was required to determine as to the amount payable to the respondent from the amount deposited. Since no rent order was passed it was not necessary for the Rent Controller to enter into the controversy as to whether the amount of Rs, 800 admittedly paid by the appellant for about 8 months as per averment contained in the written statement comprised of Rs, 500 as rent and Rs, 300 towards the security deposit. Furthermore, there is no provision requiring the Rent Controller to decide the question of quantum of deposit made by a tenant with the landlord. However, it has been submitted by Mr. Fazal Bhoy that as the appellant had deposited a sum of Rs, 2,000 at the time of execution of the tenancy agreement, the respondent would have no objection to refund the above amount on vacation of the bungalow in question.
5. As regards the second contention, namely, that the respondent failed to prove personal bona fide requirement, it may be observed that Mr. Mumtaz Ahmed has invited my attention to the two photostat copies of the letters dated 25th January 1979 and 4th July 1978 addressed by the Labour Attache Embassy of Pakistan (Labour Division), London to the Deputy Commissioner North Nazimabad, Karachi. In the letter dated 4th July, 1978, it has been stated that the applicant Mst.
Zubaida had been advised by her doctor to transfer her residence from London to Karachi, whereas in the other letter dated 25th January 1979, it has been stated that the applicant, namely, Mst. Zubaida Noor Muhammad intends to proceed to Karachi for permanent settlement under the medical advice. He has also invited my attention to paras. 3 and 4 of the application, in which it has been averred that the applicant needs the premises in good faith for his and his family and that the applicant had been in London but now he desires to pass the rest of life at Karachi and, therefore, his family needs the premises for their residential purposes. On the basis of the above two letters and the contents of the above paras. Of the rent application, it has been urged by Mr. Mumtaz Ahmed that there is inconsistency inasmuch as in the above letters it was stated that the respondent's wife was to be shifted to Pakistan, whereas in the rent application the respondent improved and stated that he also intended to go back to Pakistan and settle permanently. In my view there is no inconsistency. If respondent's wife was to come to Pakistan on account of medical reason, it is but natural that the respondent would come to live with other members of the family. It has also been urged by him that the above two documents indicated that only Mst. Zubaida is the only member of the family who is in Pakistan. in my view the above fact does not make any difference. The fact remains that the respondent's wife is in Pakistan and is not occupying any house owned by her or by the respondent and, therefore, the personal bona fide requirement stands proved by the above two witnesses. It has also been urged by Mr. Mumtaz that the respondent himself had not come into the witness-box in order to prove the personal requirement.
In my view this contention is also devoid of any force inasmuch as Mst. Zubaida Noo Muhammad, wife of the respondent, who was present in Pakistan had D entered into the witness box and supported the contents of the application. The requirement of a wife is a requirement of the husband and vice versa since both are to live together.
6. For the aforesaid reasons I do not find any merit in the above appeal and, therefore., it is dismissed. However, I grant two months time to the appellant from today on the condition that if the appellant fails to hand over the vacant possession on the expiry of the above period, the learned Rent Controller shall issue writ of ejectment without any notice to the appellant. Further, it is to be clarified that in case the appellant vacates the premises the respondent shall refund Rs, 2,000 which amount has been admitted by the learned counsel for the respondent before this Court.
' In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.