' Rent Case No, 2015 of 1977 was filed on 10th July, 1977 by the respondent/landlord for the ejectment of the appellant/tenant from the premises in question on the grounds of personal requirement and for committing default in the payment of rent w. e. f. November, 1976. The rent application was allowed on 30tb January, 1982 on both the grounds and ejectment of the appellant was ordered by the Rent Controller. This first rent appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the order, dated 30th January, 1982 of the Rent Controller. I have heard Mr. K. B. Bhutto, learned counsel for the appellant and Syed Qutbuddin Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The case of the appellant, as regards the payment of rent, was that he has paid rent up to May, 1977 and although receipts were issued till December, 1976, thereafter receipts were not issued. It was also contended that rent used to be collected by the respondent for several months in lump sum and as per this habit of the respondent, rent for five months from January to May, 1977 was received by the respondent but be failed and neglected to deliver rent receipts with mala fide motive. The case for personal requirement was also defended and it was averred that the respondent wanted to enhance the rate of rent, which was the real reason for filing the ejectment application.
3. As regards the practice of the respondent collecting rent in lump sum for several months at a time, I find no evidence to support that plea raised on behalf of the appellant. As regards non- issuance of rent receipts for the months of January to May, 1977, reference may be made to receipts dated 14th October, 1976, 12th November, 1976 and 15th January, 1977 issued by the respondent/landlord. The first receipt is for the month of August and September, 1976 the second receipt for the month of October, 1976 and the third receipt for the months of November and December, 1976. The issuance of these receipts show that receipts were in fact being issued by the respondent. The bare statement by the appellant that respondent had collected the rent for five months and had not issued receipts, has not been accepted by the Rent Controller, and I do not see any reason to interfere with the said finding.
4. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that in the rent application the respondent has taken the stand that rent had not been paid from November, 1976 but in his evidence he admitted that the rent had been paid upto December, 1976 and further that in his cross-examination at one place he stated that he did not know since when the rent has been paid.
In my view, these two points do not demolish the case of the respondent. As rightly found by the Rent Controller that on the basis of evidence a default from January, 1977 had been established, it was a case of wilful default on the part of the appellant.
5. On the question of personal requirement, the contention of the learned counsel for appellant, was that admittedly the respondent's family consisting of seven members was residing in two rooms and it had not been established whether the two-room accommodation was not suitable for the respondent's family or that the accommodation in the house in question, which belongs to the respondent, would be suitable for the respondent's family or was more than the accommodation already in occupation of the respondent's family. The record has established that the respondent's family consisting of seven members was residing in rented premises and the words used in section 13 (3) (a) (i) (b) of the 1959 Ordinance for the requirement that the landlord should not be in occupation of another residential building suitable for his need, does not extend to cover rented premises and as such the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant in this behalf has no force. Reliance is placed on a judgment of the Supreme Court Abdus Salam Akhtar v.
Dr. Najam Parvez, where the following dictum was laid down :- "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 need 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 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. 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."
6. On the basis of the evidence on record, the Rent Controller came to the correct conclusion that the premises in question belonging to the respondent/landlord were required bona fide for his family.
7. The other contention raised on behalf of the appellant was that the rent application itself was not maintainable, a's previously the tenant was the father of the appellant and after his demise in July, 1971, the appellant as well as his mother and other heirs of the deceased became the tenants of the premises. In his cross-examination the appellant has admitted that when this case was filed by the respondent, be had informed the other heirs of the deceased about the institution of the ejectment case and that they had consented to the appellant defending the proceedings. In the face of this admission, the plea cannot be raised that the rent application was not maintainable for non- joinder of other legal heirs. Even otherwise, the appellant, who has admitted to be the tenant and who has also admitted that he was paying the rent to the respondent, I cannot take up this plea.
8. There is no substance in the present rent appeal F. R. A. No, 206 of 1982 is dismissed with costs.
The appellant is, however, granted time till 31st May, 1983 to vacate the premises.
1976 SCM R 521 1