1. ' This is rent appeal against the order dated 24th February, 1980 passed by the learned Rent Controller in Rent Application No, 3319/78 ordering the ejectment of the appellant on the ground of personal requirement of the respondents.
2. ' The brief facts leading to the filing of the above appeal are that the respondents filed ejectment application on two grounds, namely, default and personal requirement. The above application was resisted by the present appellant/opponent. However, the learned Rent Controller through his order under appeal allowed the rent application on the ground of personal requirement but recorded the finding against the respondents on the ground of default. The appellant being aggrieved by the above order has filed the present appeal.
2. (a) In support of the above appeal Messrs Syed Zahir Hussain and Naqshbandi have urged that the application filed by the respondents was mala fide and that the learned Rent Controller acted illegally in recording the finding on the question of personal requirement in favour of the respondents. On the other hand, it has been urged by Mr. All Ahmed Tariq that the finding of the learned Rent Controller on the ground of personal requirement is in accordance with the evidence on record. Messrs Zahir Hussain and Naqshbandi have invited my attention to Exh. 3 in which no reference to personal requirement was made and also to the fact that in rent application the respondent claimed the rent at the rate of Rs, 340 p. m. Though the agreed rent was Rs, 130.
3. Whereas, Mr. Tariq, learned counsel for the respondents points out that Exh. 3 was a notice given by the legal heirs of late Syed Ali Zaidi under S. 13-A of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. From the perusal of the above notice it seems that the intention of the service of the above notice was to intimate the appellant that after the death of Syed Ali Zaidi the respondents were the landlords and the appellant was asked to pay the rent. The mere fact that in this notice personal requirement was not mentioned would not reflect adversely on the bona fide requirement of the respondents. However, it is true that in the rent application the respondents illegally demanded the rent at the rate o A Rs, 340 though according to the evidence on record the rent was Rs, 130 per month plus sui gas charges the total of which comes to Rs, 155 p. m. This fact will not itself be sufficient to negative the bona fide personal requirement, if from the evidence on record the Court is satisfied that the case of personal requirement is ma de out.
(b) The learned Rent Controller has recorded the finding on the question of personal requirement by holding that the applicant No, 2 Mst. Anjuman Nisa is putting up with her husband and children on the second floor in asbestos sheets roof. He has further recorded the finding that except applicant/respondent No, 4 Mst. Shahnaz Parveen applicants 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7 are residing in the remaining premises. It may b pertinent to observe that the building comprised of ground-floor, firs floor and certain construction with asbestos sheet on the roof of the firs floor. The ground-floor has four rooms, two were let out to some other tenant and two to the appellant. It has come on record that during the pendency of the rent application the other tenant had compromised with the respondents and handed over the possession of the two rooms on the ground-floor. On the first floor according to the appellant there are four rooms, whereas, according to the respondents there are two rooms only.
3. (a) In my view there are two questions, which require consideration, namely, (1) whether the present accommodation available with the respondent is sufficient to meet their personal requirement, and (2) whether the fact that the other tenant has handed over possession of the two rooms to the respondent will render the respondents' application on the ground of personal requirement as infructuous.
(b) As regards the first question, it may be mentioned that there is no dispute that Mst. Anjuman Nisa is living with her husband and children on the roof in one room, which has asbestos sheets- roof. It is, therefore, clear that she needs better accommodation to live in it. It has also come on record that Mst. Iqbal Fatima another daughter is a divorcee and a teacher living with her mother.
4. It may be pertinent to observe that the appellant in his cross-examination admitted the factum that there was litigation between Mst. Iqbal Fatima and her husband. If in fact there was litigation between Iqbal Fatima and her husband, it is unlikely that she would reside with her husband. In this view of the matter the finding of the learned Rent Controller that Mst. Iqbal Fatima is also putting up with applicant No, 1/respondent No, 1 seems to be correct.
5. ' As regards the applicant No, 4/respondent No, 4 Shahnaz Parveen, as pointed out hereinabove, the finding of the learned Rent Controller was that she was living in a rented premises. It was argued by Mr. Tariq that Mst. Shahnaz Parveen is also at present residing with her mother. It may be stated that Mst. Shahnaz Parveen's husband (who happened to be present in Court on 12th April, 1982) was examined by me under S. 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, at the request of the learned counsel for the appellant. He has deposed that he has been putting with her mother-in-law since January, 1982 as he has vacated his tenement. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that this statement of Mst. Shahnaz's husband is false as he is still residing in the same tenement. Be that as it may, since the finding of the learned Rent Controller is that Mst.
6. Shahnaz Parveen is residing in a rented premises and not with Mst. Anwari Begum I am not inclined to disturb the above finding on the basis of the above statement of her husband made before this Court, as admittedly at the time of recording of the above finding by the learned Rent Controller Mst. Shahnaz was putting up in a rented tenement and not with her mother. However, this will not affect the finding of the learned Rent Controller on the question of personal requirement. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the respondents that even if it is to be held that Mst.
7. Shahnaz Parveen is putting up in a rented premises, she being one of the legal heirs of the deceased landlord has become joint landlady and, therefore, she is entitled to live in a building in which she has a share. This contention seems to have some force.
8. ' As regards the applicants Nos. 5, 6 and 7/respondents Nos. 5, 6 and 7 there is no dispute that they are putting up in the building in question. It cannot also be denied that applicant No, 7 Ehtesham All is of marriageable age and, therefore, he needs further accommodation after marriage. Even if I were to hold that the first floor has also four rooms and the ground-floor admittedly has four rooms, the total number of rooms available with the respondents would be 6. The sizes of the rooms, as pointed out by the learned Rent Controller are very small. According to the respondents the size of a room is 10 x 10 ft. It may be mentioned that the respondent was asked in the cross- examination to say whether the sizes of the rooms were 10' x 10' only, but his reply was that he was not in a position to state as he had not measured the rooms. It may be observed that from the evidence on record the following facts stand proved:-
(i) Respondent No, 2 Mst. Anjuman Nisa is putting up on the roof of the first floor in one room having asbestos sheets with her husband and children.
(ii) Respondent No, 3 Mst. Iqbal Fatima a divorcee is also putting up with her mother respondent No, 1.
(iii) Two unmarried daughters respondents Nos. 5 and 6 are also residing with their mother.
(iv) Respondent No, 7 Ehtisham of marriageable age is also putting up with respondent No, 1 and is about to be married. The accumulative effect of the above facts is that bona fide personal requirement stands proved.
(c) As regards the above second question, it may be observed that it is true during the pendency of rent case in question, the tenant of the appellant's adjacent tenement compromised the case with the respondents and handed over a tenement comprising of two rooms. The learned Rent Controller has taken note of this fact and the finding recorded by him in this regard seems to be correct. Even if I were to hold that the first floor has four rooms and not two rooms as contended by the respondents, the total number of rooms in possession of the res pendants are six, including the tenement surrendered by the aforesaid tenant. Admittedly the sizes of rooms are of very small. In addition to that one room with asbestos sheets. The above total accommodation is not sufficient to accommodate the aforesaid respondents, it may be observed that simplicity the fact that a landlord has obtained possession of another tenement during the pendency of a rent application on the ground of personal requirement will not render such a rent application infructuous, but it will be a relevant factor to be considered by the Rent Controller. If the Rent Controller after taking into consideration the above fact comes to the conclusion that the total accommodation available with the landlord is not sufficient to cater for his personal requirement, no exception can be taken to such a finding if it is in consonance with the evidence on record.
9. I, therefore, find no justification in the above appeal and it is therefore, dismissed but I grant one year's time to the appellant with the consent of the learned counsel for the respondents from today on the condition that the appellant shall continue to deposit the rent in terms of the Rent Controller's order. However, in case be will make default, the E respondent's shall be entitled to file an execution application before the expiry of the above one year time. Furthermore, in case, the appellant fails to vacate the tenement on the expiry of one year period, the Rent Controller shall issue a writ of ejectment without any further notice to the appellant. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.