1. ' Appellant above named, being aggrieved by order dated 19th December,1982 of the IXth Senior Civil Judge, and Rent Controller Karachi in Rent Case No,464/79, by which respondent's ejectment application on the ground of personal and bona fide use was allowed, has preferred the above appeal, on the facts and grounds mentioned in the memo. Of appeal.
2. ' The learned Advocate for the appellant in support of the above appeal submitted as under:-- ' That respondent in her application for ejectment stated, that she required the premises in question for personal and bona fide use, as her landlord has given notice of ejectment. However, in the statement before the learned Rent Controller, she introduced the additional ground for said purpose in respect of her children and as such this proves mala fide intention of the respondent. In support of this contention the learned Advocate for the appellant relied upon case reported in 1981 CLC 1267 and submitted, that the learned Rent Controller has erred in coming to the conclusion, that the respondent requires the premises in occupation of the appellant for her personal and bona fide use.
3. ' The learned Advocate appearing for the respondent on the other hand submitted, that there was no change in the ground of personal and bona fide use as alleged by the learned Advocate for the appellant. The mentioning of the additional ground for such purpose does not in any way cast doubts on the bona fides of the respondent. In support of these contentions the learned advocate for the respondent relied upon cases reported in 1982 SCMR 1046, 1982 CLC 2164, 1981 CLC 327, PLD 1981 Kar. 67, PLD 1981 Kar. 273, 1982 CLC 153 and 1982 CLC 935. I have carefully considered the above submissions made by the learned Advocates before me and have gone through the R & P of the learned trial Court as well as impugned judgment and the cases cited by the learned Advocates for the parties before me.
4. ' Respondent had filed ejectment application in question on grounds of default, personal and bona fide use, damage to the property. The learned Rent Controller rejected the application of respondent on all grounds, except on the ground of personal and bona fide use, for the reasons given in the impugned judgment.
5. ' 1 have gone through the statement of respondent and her witnesses recorded before the learned trial Court as well as through the statement of appellant.
6. I find no force in the contentions of the learned Advocate for the appellant, that respondent changed her reason for personal and bona fide use and as such ejectment application in question was filed mala finely, in order to enhance the rent of the premise. I find respondent in her statement before the learned trial Court stated, that her landlord is pressing her to vacate the premises and further she required the premises for her personal and bona fide use, to enable her eldest son to stay with her, in old age to look after her, which is not possible for him to do so, in the present premises in her occupation, as same consist of only 2 rooms. Her statement was not shaken in her cross-examination at all. In addition to this I find her sons S. M. Javed Akhtar and S. M. Naim Akhter have fully corroborated respondent's statement, before the learned trial A Court. Against this evidence on record, appellant examined himself and denied the allegations of respondent and stated that as he refused to pay enhanced rent at Rs,900 per month, for which fresh draft of tenancy agreement was sent to him, by respondent, respondent has mala finely filed ejectment application. Appellant did not produce any copy of the alleged fresh agreement nor he examined any one else in support of his contention. He has merely denied, that respondent requires the premises for her personal and bona fide use. Keeping in view the evidence before the learned Rent Controller and appraisal of the said evidence done by me, I see no reason to disagree with the conclusions and findings of the learned Rent Controller, in granting respondent's ejectment application on ground of personal and bona fide use. The case cited by the learned Advocate for appellant is based on different facts and as such not applicable to the facts of the present case.
7. ' Therefore I find no merits in the above appeal, which is consequently dismissed, with no orders as to cost. However, I allow time upto 31st July,1983 to the appellant to vacate the premises in his occupation and hand over its vacant possession to the respondent, provided he continues to deposit the rent of the said premises, in accordance with the tentative order of rent, in the Court of learned Rent Controller, during this period, regularly and punctually.