' This is a first rent appeal filed against the impugned order dated 30th November, 1981 of learned IX Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi, whereby ejectment has been granted in favour of the respondent/ landlord on the ground of requirement of demised premises for his personal need.
2. Shortly stated the relevant facts are that respondent Shamim Ahmed is a landlord of House No, 1565/2, Federal "B" Area, Karachi, in which rented premises are a portion on rent with appellant/tenant Rs, 100 per month. The landlord applied for ejectment on the grounds of default for two months and personal need. Evidence was produced by both sides after assessment of which it was held by the learned Rent Controller that default was not proved but ejectment was granted on the ground of personal need.
3. Mr, Muhammad Ali Shaikh, Advocate for the appellant has assailed the finding of the learned Rent Controller on the ground that landlord has failed to discharge burden on the issue that premises were required by him for his personal need. It is further submitted that according to the application filed for ejectment landlord claimed that his wife and children were residing away from him in the house of the father of his wife for the reason that accommodation in the house of the father of landlord, where he has been residing was insufficient. Before the Rent Controller landlord examined himself and Muhammad Haleem, who is husband of sister of Shamim Ahmed landlord.
On the other hand, tenant has examined himself, Muhammad Tariq and Muhammad Azhar. Both these witnesses Muhammad Tariq and Muhammad Azhar have supported the tenant mostly on the point of default.
4. The important point which falls for consideration in this case is as to what proof is to be adduced by the landlord when he alleges that rented premises are required by him for his personal need. In the instant case, the facts are that his wife and children are living separately in the house of father of the wife for the reason that accommodation which is available with the landlord that too in the house of his father, is insufficient. Demised premises are situate in a house which belongs to the landlord but he is not in occupation of the same but is living in the house of his father. In the affidavit filed by him before the Rent Controller, landlord Shamim Ahmed has reiterated this fact and he has been subjected to cross-examination also. Muhammad Haleem, who is husband of sister of Shamim Ahmed has stated before the Rent Controller that Mst. Salma wife of landlord is not living with her husband for the reason that she does not have cordial relations with her father- in-law, Mr. Muhammad Ali Shaikh has argued that in such circumstances, landlord should have examined his wife or his father in support of the claim made by hint for requirement of premises for personal use. Section 15 (viii) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, contemplates ejectment on the ground that landlord requires the premises in good faith for his own occupation and use or for the use and occupation of his children. Landlord has stated before the Rent Controller that he needs the rented premises which are his property for his occupation and that of his wife and children as his wife and children are not living with him but are living separately since the accommodation available with him in the house of his father is insufficient. It is further stated by Shamim Ahmed that his father lives alone in the house in question in which there are 10 rooms out of which five are on rent and in the other five, Shamim Ahmed, his father and other brothers and sisters reside. Mr. Shaikh has argued to impress upon me that the accommodation already available with the landlord is sufficient and rented premises were given to the tenant way back in the 1975 when the landlord was married and had one child and was living with his father. Mr. Mukaram has argued that this may be so but now the circumstances have changed and the landlord has four children and the eldest child is 10 years old and on account of insufficiency of accommodation, his wife is constrained to live separately with her children in the house of her father and there is no other way out for the reunion of the family except that he gets back the rented accommodation to enable him and his family to live independently. The tenant has not denied this fact specifically that allegation of landlord that his wife is living separately is false or incorrect. Evidence of Muhammad Haleem produced by landlord is also not challenged on that growid when_ he has stated specifically that Mst. Salma is living separately from her husband. The contention of the tenant on the other hand only is that accommodation is sufficient and the landlord could live with his wife and his children in the house of his father. So far quality or quantity of evidence to be produced by landlord in support of hi claim for requirement of premises for personal need is concerned, no hard 4 and fast rule can be laid down and this question depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. On this point reliance can be placed on the decision in the case of Muhammad Younus v. Dr. Syed Muzamil Ali in which my learned brother Ajmal Mian, J. Has discussed the relevant case-law in detail and has come to the conclusion that no legal requirement for proof is necessary but cumulative effect of evidence brought on record by landlord is to be assessed. No legal requirement can be laid down that the landlord has to prove this or that in particular if otherwise the evidence brought on record is sufficient and adequate. In the instant case, there I no dispute about this fact that rented premises are property of the landlord who is now living in the house of his father and his wife and children are not living with him for the reason that accommodation so available with landlord is insufficient and inadequate. The tenant has not disputed this fact that landlord and his wife are living separately. The case of the tenant is that accommodation for the landlord in the house of his father is sufficient. It is further stated by Mr. Mukaram that Mst. Salma wife of landlord is an educated lady and she is a teacher in a school and further that her children are growing up and she has been compelled by the circumstances to live separately from her husband and this family can be re-united to live happily only if the landlord is allowed to get back the rented house which is his own property. In these circumstances for the1 facts and reasons mentioned above I feel that grant of ejectment by the learned Rent Controller on the ground of requirement of premises for personal need is justified and no interference is called for. So far cross, objections are concerned Mr. Mukaram states that he is not pressing the same which are hereby dismissed.
5. In the result, appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs and appellant is directed to hand over possession of the premises within four months from today on the condition that he continues to pay rent regularly and the landlord would be entitled to withdraw the same. If the appellant/ tenant commits any default in the payment of rent he would be liable to ejectment without notice. 1981 CLC 327