' These four appeals have arisen out of a common judgment given on 18th September, 1980 by the learned Civil Judge/Rent Controller Hyderabad in (1) R. A. No, 509 of 1977 (Mst. Parveen and others v.
Zakir Hussain), (2) R. A. No, 510 of 1977 (Mst. Parveen and others v. Muhammad Bux), (3) R. A. No, 512 of 1977 (Mst. Parveen and others v. Abdul Qadir) and (4) R. A. No, 511 of 1977 (Mst. Parveen and others v. Mirza Inayat Ali), whereby all the four tenants were ordered to be evicted from their respective tenements in the building bearing C.S. No, E/1396 situated at Khumbatti Gitti, Hyderabad.
1. The facts briefly stated are that the appellants are tenants of the respondents in respect of separate tenements in the above-mentioned building.
' Appellant Zakir Hussain is a tenant in respect of two rooms on ground-floor, while Abdul Kadir, is tenant on 1st floor. The other two tenants Muhammad Bux and Mirza Inayat All are tenants in respect of one shop each.
' Separate ejectment cases referred to above, were filed against them by the respondents seeking their ejectment on the ground that each one of the tenants named above was a defaulter in payment of rent, that the premises were required by the respondents for their personal bona fide, use and that they wanted to re-construct the premises. It was also alleged that the appellants had made additions and alterations in the premises whereby they had damaged their respective tenements.
' The appellants appeared and contested the matters. Upon the pleading the following issues were framed by the learned Rent Controller.
(1) Whether the opponents are wilful defaulters in payment of rent ?
(2) Whether the applicants need the premises for their personal bona fide use ?
(3) Whether the applicants want to re-construct the premises ?
(4) Whether the opponents have made addition and alterations in the premises and whereby have caused damage to it ? If so, what is its effect ?
(5) What should the order be ?
2. All the above four cases were consolidated and by consent of the parties, it was ordered that the evidence recorded in one case may be treated as evidence in all the above cases. Accordingly the evidence of all the parties and their witnesses was recorded in R. A. No, 509 of 1977.
(i) The learned Rent Controller after hearing the parties by the order passed on 18th September, 1980 held on Issue No, 1 that the tenant Abdul Qadir in R. A. No, 512/77 and Muhammad Bux another tenant in R. A. No, 510/1977 were defaulters in payment of rent.
(ii) As regards the other two tenants namely, Zakir Hussain in R. A. No, 509 of 1977 and Mirza Inayat All in R. A. No, 511 of 1977 were held be not defaulters. The Issue No, 1 was answered in the negative against them.
(iii) The Issue No, 4 was answered in the negative and it was held that the landlords had failed to discharge their burden to establish that tenants had made as alleged alterations in the property.
(iv) Issuess Nos. 2 and 3 which required determination of the question as to the requirement of the premises by the landlords for their personal bona fide use and also for the purposes of re- construction of the building were answered in the affirmative. Accordingly all the applications were allowed by the common judgment delivered on 18th September, 1980. The appellants (tenants) were directed to vacate the premises and hand over possession of the same to the landlords within one month of the passing of the said order.
3. Against the above judgments the present four appeals have been filed. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties all the appeals have been argued together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
4. The landlords/respondents have not challenged any of the findings given by the Rent Controller against them. No cross-appeals or cross objections have been filed. The only question, therefore, which requires considerations in this appeal are the findings of the learned Rent Controller on Issues Nos. 2 and 3 reproduced above.
5. (0 The respondents examined Muhammad Aslam (Exh. 22) who is the brother of the respondent ladies. He deposed in his evidence that respondent Mst. Parveen is married and is residing with her father-in-law but the said house is very small consisting of three rooms only and there are about 15 to 16 family members living in the said house and that the same is not sufficient or suitable for the residence of Mst. Parveen and therefore, she requires the tenement which is in occupation of Zakir Hussain for her personal residence.
(ii) He further deposed that Mst. Nasreen who is also married, is residing with her father-in-law in a house which consists of three rooms only whereas there are 18 family members who reside in that house. The witness further deposed that the said house is not fit for her sister and that she requires the tenement which is in occupation of the appellant Abdul Qadir, for her personal bona fide use and occupation.
(iii) He also deposed that the husband of Mst. Nasreen is a hawker and that she requires the shop for her husband which is in occupation of Mirza Inayat Ali.
(iv) The witness further deposed that they were prepared to hand over the shop to Muhammad Bux after the reconstruction of the building.
' Having thus deposed that the tenements referred to above are required for the personal bona fide use and occupation of the landlords/respondents (except the shop in occupation of Muhammad Bux) the witness further deposed that the building in question is in dilapidated condition and that the respondents have been served with notices from the Municipal Authorities for demolishing the same. He produced notice Exh. 23 from the Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad calling upon the respondents/landlords to immediately demolish the building in question as the shops on the ground-floor and the Ist storey over the same were in dilapidated and dangerous condition and likely to fall down during the rainy season causing loss of life and property. He also produced another notice Exh. 24 dated 9th October, 1977 addressed to the tenants/appellants notifiying them that the site was inspected in the presence of the tenants and the owners, when it was found that certain additions had been made therein which were ordered to be removed. The witness also produced Exhs. 26 and 27 which are approval of the plan and the approved plan for the re- construction of the builing on the site.
' On behalf of the landlords/respondents Abdul Hamid husband of Mst. Nasreen was also examined. He corroborated the statement of Muhammad Aslam to the effect that he was a hawker and required the premises in question for his personal and bona fide use and that the house in which he was living alongwith Mst. Nasreen consists of three rooms wherein about 18 family members resided. He further deposed that there was no privacy in the said house and is not fit for their residence.
' The witness Abdul Razzaq Exh. 30 stated in his evidence that he is the husband of Mst. Parveen and that she is residing with him in the house of his father which house consists of three rooms and that in it resided about 18 members of the family and is not fit or suitable for their residence.
' These above named witnessse s were cross-examined but their evidence as to the requirement of the personal use of the landlords of the premises for re-construction of a new building on the site could not be shaken. The only point urged in the appeals by the learned counsel for the appellants was that the respondents in support of their plea of bona fide requirement of the premises for re- construction have not brought on record any evidence to show that they have sufficient funds for raising the construction.
6. I have considered the above arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants and I am afraid that the plea advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants cannot be accepted. We have already noted above that Muhammad Aslam had given evidence showing that the ladies (1)
Mst. Parveen and (2) Mst. Nasreen required the residential premise in possession of Zakir Hussain and Abdul Qadir for their respective personal use and occupation, while the shop in possession of Mirza Inayat Ali is required for the use and occupation of the husband of Mst. Nasreen who is hawker and requires the said shop for his personal us and occupation after re-construction of the building. On behalf of th respondents it has further been stated in evidence by Muhammad Aslam that they would hand over the shop to appellant Muhammad Bux after re-construction of the building. This statement shows the bona fides of the respondents and goes to prove that they have no intention to unnecessarily harass any of the tenants/appellants.
7. In view of the evidence on the record supported by the notice Exh. 23 dated 16th July, 1977 from the Municipal Corporation declarin the building as in a dilapidated condition and dangerous and calling upon the landlords/respondents to demolish the same forthwith with a warning that in case they failed to demolish the same the Municipal Corporation would demolish the same at their risk and costs, support by the approval of the plan granted by the Municipal Corporation vide Exh. 26 and the approved plan itself produced as Exh. 27 leaves no doubt in the bona fides of the landlords that they require the premises in possession of the appellants to reconstruct a building after demolition of the existing structure. The only plea advanced as noted above was that the respondents have not brought evidence on record to show that they have sufficient funds for raising the construction. Neither such plea was raised in the written statement nor any question to that effect was suggested in the cross-examination. In the circumstances it is not permissible to allow the appellants to raise a new plea at the appellate stage. The plea as now raised is a mere afterthought.
8. In the case of Amir Din Allah Ditta v. Adamji Abdullahwhile dealing with the requirement of the landlord as to reconstruction of the building, the Honourable Supreme Court observed that the arguments that the respondent's requirement of the new building was neither reason-1 able nor bona fide was not relevant to the disposal of the ejectment petition filed under section 13(2)(vi) of the Ordinance and that the penal provisions contained in subsection (5) of section 13 of the Ordinance afforded an adequate safeguard against a landlord acting in bad faith. In the same judgment the findings of the Courts below as to the requirement of the landlord to reconstruct the building for his own use and for which his plan has also been sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation based on evidence, was held to be unexceptionable.
' The above principles apply fully to the present appeals and I find there is no substance in the plea advanced by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellants.
9. For the reasons discussed above these appeals are without any merits and are accordingly dismissed.
' The appellants are granted six months' time to vacate the premises provided they continue to deposit rent every month during this period. In the case of default in payment of rent for any month of failure to vacate the premises on the expiry of the period granted as above, writ of ejectment will be issued without any notice.
' There shall however be no order as to costs. 1969 SCMR 131