' Rent Case No,209 of 1981 was filed on 12-1-1981 by the respondent landlady for the ejectment of the appellant/tenant on the ground of default in the payment of rent and personal requirement.
' The application was resisted by the appellant, who filed his written statement. The landlady, Mst.
Amina Bano, gave evidence. Abdul Karim, brother of the respondent and Abdul Aziz, husband of sister of the respondent, also gave evidence on behalf of the respondent. The appellant appeared in the witness-box in support of his case. The three other witnesses, namely Muhammad Yasin, an Estate Broker, Muhammad Ashraf, a friend of the appellant and one Amin s/o Abdul Karim, Secretary of Dhoraji Association (Registered) Karachi, also gave evidence on behalf of the appellant. By the impugned order dated 28-4-1982, the learned Rent Controller, Karachi, granted the rent application on the ground of personal requirement only and ordered ejectment of the appellant. Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed the present first rent appeal. I have heard Mr.Ismail P.adhiar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Habibullah Jatoi, who has appeared on behalf of the respondent.
2. The case of the respondent was that she had purchased the property in question on 5-4-1979 from the previous owner and occupied the first floor of the house in question. A notice under section 13-A of the 1959 Rent Ordinance was served by the respondent upon the appellant, who was in occupation of the ground floor of the property in question. Second notice dated 19-7-1980 given by the respondent to the appellant called upon the appellant to vacate the premises in his occupation, as the ground floor was required by the respondent for her and her family's personal requirement. Second notice was replied on 31-7-1980 by the appellant, who denied that the ground floor was required by the respondent for her personal needs. Para.4 of the ejectment application reads as follows:-- "That the applicant purchased the premises in good faith for her personal use. The applicant is residing along with her husband, two major daughters, four sons, out of whom two are major and father and mother-in-laws. The premises in occupation comprises of three bedrooms only, which are as such insufficient for the applicant's needs."
3. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is contradiction between para.4 of the ejectment application and the evidence given by the landlady. In her affidavit-in- evidence, the landlady had given the details of about ten members of her family, in para. 10 of the affidavit, and these ten included the mother-in-law and father-in-law of the landlady. However, in her cross-examination she had stated that the mother-in-law and father-in-law were living with an elder brother of her husband but they intended to reside with the respondent. The respondent/landlady had further stated in her affidavit-in-evidence that one of her sons namely Asif was engaged with the daughter of Abdul Karim (brother of the respondent) and the marriage was being delayed for want of the accommodation and that arrangements for the engagement of the second son Arif were also being made. The fact about engagement of her son Asif has been corroborated by Abdul Karim, whose daughter is alleged to have been engaged with the son of respondent Asif. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the story about the engagement of Asif with the daughter of witness, Abdul Karim, is false and he has relied upon the evidence of Amin, Secretary of Dhoraji Association (Registered) Karachi. The appellant's witness Amin states in his affi davit-in-evidence that according to Jamaat (Dhoraji Association) rules and regulations "Mangni" (engagement) has to be registered at the Jamaat Office by both the sides, who have to pay the prescribed fee. In para. 3 of his affidavit he says that no engagement in Memon Community can take place without registration and issue of receipt by the Jamaat to that effect to both sides. In cross-examination, however, this witness stated that the respondent/landlady did not belong to Dhoraji Community. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, it is an admitted position that the so-called engagement of Asif with the daughter of Abdul Karim had not been registered and as such in view of the evidence of the witness Amin, Secretary of Dhoraji Association,' the factum of engagement of Asif has not been proved. I have not been able to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant on this point. There is the evidence of the mother of the boy about the engagement and this is corroborated by the evidence of the father of the girl. In view of the evidence of witness Amin, it is an admitted position that the respondent does not belong to Dhoraji Community and as such the rules and regulations of Dhoraji Association about registration of engagement did not apply to the respondent and her family. No question was put to the respondent in cross-examination about the community to which she belongs and whether according to the rules of her community it is necessary that engagements are to be registered. The evidence led on behalf of the appellant has not demolished the case of the respondent about the engagement of her son and the fact that the marriage of her son is being delayed on account of shortage of accommodation. The evidence about the forthcoming engagement of the other son of the respondent has gone unchallenged. The mere statement in para. 3 of the affidavit-in-evidence of witness Amin, Secretary of Dhoraji Association that no engagement in Memo A Community can take place without registration and issue of receipt the Jama to the effect is not sufficient to establish a custom in the entire Memon Community to that effect. The evidence, that was give by the witness Amin, was in his capacity as Secretary of Dhoraji Society.
4. It was then contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that three or four bedrooms on the first floor of the house are sufficient for the needs of the respondent and her family members, which are eight in number. The finding of the learned Rent Controller on issue No,2 relating to personal requirement is that one room will be kept by the respondent and her husband and that with the remaining two bedrooms it will be difficult for the respondent to keep her children, two daughters and four sons. According to the Rent Controller, they are sufficiently grown up and some of them are school and college-going B for which they would require rooms for their studies and that one son of the respondent had been engaged and his engagement has been proved. On the basis of these findings, the learned Rent Controller was satisfied that the accommodation available with the respondent was insufficient for her needs and for the needs of her family. On the basis of the evidence on record, a reasonable view has been taken by the learned Rent Controller and I find no illegality in his order calling for interference.
5. It was lastly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the ejectment application was mala fide. It was contended that if the need of the respondent was bona fide, she should have given a C notice to the appellant soon after the purchase of the property but there is a delay of about one year in the giving of the notice for personal requirement. In the facts of the present case, in my view, it has not been established that the ejectment application was mala fide.
6. This appeal fails. F.R.A. No,650/82 is dismissed with costs. The appellant is, however, granted time till 31-12-1983 to vacate the premises.