1. ' This is Second Appeal against the order dated 28th October, 1978 and 7th January, 1980 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Rohri and the learned First Additional District Judge, Sukkur respectively in rent application No, 3/1976 and Appeal No, 82/1978 ordering the ejectment of the present appellant.
2. ' The relevant facts leading to the filing of the above rent application are that the deceased respondent filed aforesaid rent application on three grounds, namely causing damage to the property, default for the period commencing from December, 1969 to 26th March, 1976 and personal requirement. The above application was resisted by the present appellant. After the trial of the case learned Rent Controller allowed the application on two grounds namely, default and personal requirement. The appellant being aggrieved by the above order filed the aforesaid appeal which was dismissed by the aforesaid order dated 7th January, 1980. The appellant being aggrieved by the above order has filed the present Second Appeal.
3. ' In support of the above appeal Mr. Abdul Rahman learned counsel for the appellant has made following submissions :-
(1) Ground of default cannot be sustained as admittedly deceased respondent had refused to accept four money orders which were sent upto March, 1970.
(2) That the ground of personal requirement has also become redundant as the deceased's mother had expired and also the respondent.
4. ' As regards the first contention, he has invited my attention to four coupons of money orders which were for the period covering from December, 1969 to March, 1970 at the rate of Rs, 15 whereas the default in the present case is upto 26th March, 1976. It is true that in a case if a landlord refuses to accept the rent remitted by the money order for three-four times, the Court may hold that there was no wilful default if the period of default is not very long period. However, in the instant case default period is nearly 6 years and the refusal on the part of the deceased respondent to accept four money orders sent upto March, 1970 would not have absolved the appellant from either remitting the rent for the future period or to deposit the same with the Rent Controller by filing a miscellaneous case. In any case there is a concurrent finding of the two Courts on the question of default, which cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to record and, therefore, does not call for any interference.
5. ' As regards the second ground, it is an admitted position that in the deposition, the deceased had stated that he wanted to shift his family to his own house as he was putting up in the house of his mother and that his wife was fighting with the mother. It is also true that the mother has expired and so also the respondent. The mother had left behind the deceased respondent and two daughters, whereas respondent had left behind one widow and 7 children. The requirement of the deceased respondent was not strictly personal requirement in the sense that he wanted to live in his own house alone but he wanted to shift his family which comprised of himself, his wife and 7 children. The death of the mother or deceased respondent in 'my view has not rendered persona requirement of the deceased respondents' family as redundant. Besides th deceased respondent, the mother had left two daughters. Mr. Abdul Rahman has referred to the case of Sardar Ali Ghori and 7 others v. Sh. Maqbool Elahi, in which a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court held that the personal requirement of the landlord who wanted the tenement let out for establishing a Limited Company and creation of trust was no longer there after his death. This case has no application. There is distinction between personal requirement for business and personal requirement for a residence. If a landlord applies for a personal require meat for a shop for starting business and if he expires leaving behind only a widow or daughters without any major male issue or if he was doctor wanted to start a clinic after his death that personal requirement will no longer be there. However, in case if a landlord needs a house accommodating himself and his other members of the family i. e. Wife and the children, after the death of the landlord the personal requiremen will remain intact because he leaves behind the widow and the children. In the instant case legal heirs of the deceased respondent are not obliged t live in the house belonging to their grandmother which would devolve on them and on their two aunts left behind. Mr. Abdul Latif Memon has referred to the case of Mst. Jamila Latif v. Ghulam Yazdani Khan and others. It was held that where a landlady was seeking eviction of petitioner on the ground of personal requirement of her own as well as of her children, the fact that the landlady had expired during the pendency of the ejectment application would not affect the requirement of the children. The above Supreme Court ruling lends support to the conclusion arrived at by me.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, the concurrent finding on the question o personal requirement can not be interfered with. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. The appellant is, however, grants four months time from today on the condition that the appellant shall continue to deposit rent in terms of the Rent Controller's order, failing which the respondent shall be at liberty to file an execution application before the expiry of the above period of four months. Furthermore, in case the appellant fails to handover the vacant possession on the expiry of above period of four months, the Rent Controller shall issue a writ of ejectment without further notice to .The appellant. 1982 CLC 748 1981 SCM R 6371 2 1 2