1. ' This appeal has been filed under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 against the order dated 30th August, 1980 passed by the Fifth Rent Controller, Karachi in Rent Case No, 3553 of 1978 directing ejectment of the appellant from the demised premises within six months of the order.
2. ' The facts briefly stated are that the respondent who is landlord of building No, 10/EII1, Nazimabad, Karachi rented out two room flat on the first floor to the appellant at a monthly rent of Rs, 100 on 1st November, 1969. The rent was enhanced to Rs, 150 per month in the year, 1977.
3. ' On 2nd August, 1978 the respondent filed application under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 before the VT Rent Controller seeking eviction of the appellant on the ground that he needed the demised premises in good faith for his bona fide personal use. It was his case that he had grown up children and needed the premises for his son who was getting married.
4. ' On 5th November, 1970 the appellant filed written statement admitting the tenancy and the present rate of monthly rent. He, however, denied that the premises were required bona fide for use of the respondent and took the plea that the accommodation already with the landlord was sufficient for his needs. The plea was based on the following facts alleged by the appellant :
(1) That the entire second floor was occupied by the landlord wherein two rooms were lying vacant.
(2) That a flat consisting of 3 rooms opposite the two room flat of the appellant had been let out to one Sadruddin by the respondent.
(3) That there were atleast four rooms vacant on the ground floor-which could meet genuine requirement of the respondent.
5. ' On the only issue whether the premises were required by the landlord for bona fide use the respondent himself, and his son Ibrahim filed affidavits of evidence and were cross-examined by the appellant who filed his own affidavit of evidence and was in turn cross-examined by the respondent.
6. The respondent in his affidavit stated that he had children, namely, four sons Ibrahim, Ismail, Ishaque and Ashraf and two daughters Mst. Madin and Mst. Hamidan. All of them are grown up and live with him in th portion of property in his possession which is not sufficient and he required more accommodation as his children are grown up and his son Ibrahim w going to get married. He further stated that the flat in occupation of the tenant (appellant herein) was suitable for his needs and he would accommodate his son Ibrahim whom he wanted to get married. He made it clear that the flat in question was most suitable for his need. In his cross examination he stated that Sadruddin pays Rs, 500 as rent as that flat consists of three rooms. He further stated that he was occupying five rooms on the second floor. He admitted that originally the rent of flat with the appellant was Rs, 100 which had been enhanced to Rs, 150 per month three years back. He denied that he wanted to get increase in rent.
7. ' The evidence of the respondent was consistent with his version in the application for ejectment and nothing brought out in the cross-examination, has the effect of in any way discrediting it. It is fully supported by his son Muhammad Ibrahim who also came in the witness box and his evidence too was not in any way discredited by anything stated in the cross-examination. Muhammad Ibrahim also confirmed that the flat given on rent to Sadruddin was a bigger one consisting of 3 rooms.
8. ' The evidence of the respondent about the number of his children has not been controverted by the appellant who in his cross-examination has admitted that respondent has 3-4 sons and 2.3 daughters. He had further confirmed that Sadruddin's flat consists of three rooms whereas his own flat consists of "one and half rooms." It is argued that when a bigger flat had fallen vacant if the need of the landlord is genuine he should not have given it on rent, and that the very fact that he gave it on rent indicates the mala fides of the action against the appellant which is only to get the premises vacated to get better rent. The argument overlooks the fact that it is the privilege of the landlord to select the premises he considers most suited to his needs for example in the instant case he may well consider the small flat which according to the appellant consists of one room and a half for occupation of his newly wedded son and not give up the rent of Rs, 500 which he gets for the bigger flat. It is for the landlord to judge what premises would be more suited to his needs and it is not for the tenant to decide for him.
9. ' In Nooruddin and others v. Asghar All and other a decision of the Supreme Court relied on the learned Rent Controller the fact that one flat in the building had fallen vacant earlier which had been let out by the landlord on rent, was held not to affect good faith of his demand. The observations quoted by the learned Rent Controller from the aforesaid decision also make it very clear that the landlord has the discretion to decide which portions of the building is more suited to his needs.
10. The learned Rent Controller also quoted the observations of the Supreme Court in Sabu Mal v. Nika Ram on the prerogative and discretion of the landlord in case he has more than one house in the same urban area to select C the one of his choice for residence. The observation (with utmost respect) would apply with equal force to the case of choice of portions in the same building owned by him.
11. ' Reliance has also been placed on the decision of this Court in Messrs Dada Ltd. v. Madersa Muzharul Uloom Association on the point that choice always lies with the landlord to choose the place which he requires for his purpose.1 2 3 With regard to the contention that the fact that earlier the rent of the demised premises had been enhanced at the behest of the landlord should be a pointer that he wanted to get the premises for being given on still higher rent, Mr. Matloob Hussain Siddiqui the learned counsel for the respondent has referred to a decision of this Court in Haji Majid v Haji Imamuddin wherein it was held that the fact that the landlord had earlier enhanced the rent from time to time, was not per se sufficient to cast doubt about his D personal bona fide requirement.
12. ' Moreover, the safeguard against reletting the premises to someone else after getting the tenant evicted was provided in subsection (4) of section 13 of the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, that the tenant may be put back in possession if the landlord does not occupy the premises himself after getting them vacated on the ground of personal need and similar safeguard is provided in section 15/A of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, which has repealed the earlier Ordinance, which provides the penalty in such case.
13. ' Under the circumstances there is no weight in the appeal which is dismissed but under the circumstances no orders are being passed with regard to costs.
14. ' The appellant is hereby directed to hand over vacant possession of the premises to the respondent within one month of the date of the judgment. 1968 SCMR 1987 1973 SCM R 185 1981 C 1 C 110 1981 CLC 718