' The respondents are owners of the house situated at Block No, T.L.1/56/10 in Bhimpura, Karachi.
Two rooms of this house are occupied by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 while the rest of the portion has been rented out to the appellant at Rs,80 per month. On 17th October,1978 the two respondents filed an ejectment application being Rent Case No,4864 of 1978 before IIIrd Rent Controller Karachi against the appellant for eviction of the appellant on the ground that the respondents required the premises for their bona fide requirement and the requirement of their children. Respondent No,2 has three sons namely Nisar Hussain Shah, Ashiq Hussain Shah and Akhtar Hussain Shah and one daughter namely Abda Bibi. Out of three sons one is married and is having children. While another son of respondent No, 2 has been engaged and is awaiting marriage. It has, therefore, been alleged by the respondents that the two rooms in their possession are quite insufficient and that they require the entire house for their bona fide requirement.
2. The appellant filed written statement alleging that only Mst.Sakina Bibi respondent No,2 was the owner of the house as well as landlord and that respondent No,1 had no locus standi to file ejectment application. It was denied that the portion of the house in their possession was required by the respondents for their bona fide use. He did not challenge the rate of rent but alleged that he has been paying rent regularly only to respondent No, 2.
3. After recording evidence of the parties the learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the respondents were landlords being owners of the premises in dispute and that their bona fide requirement was proved. In view of this finding the learned Rent Controller, vide his judgment dated 29th October,1981 accepted the ejectment application and directed the appellant to hand over vacant possession of the premises in question to the respondents within two months. This judgment has been challenged by the appellant in the present appeal.
4. I have heard Mr.Fazal Bhoy, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.Khuda Bux Omrani, learned counsel for the respondents, who have led me through the evidence recorded by the learned Rent Controller. So far as the question of the two respondents being landlords of the premises in question is concerned, in her evidence Mst.Begum Bibi (respondent No,1) has produced certified copy of City Survey Record as Exh.5-A in which both the respondents have been shown as the owners of the premises in question. Reference in this connection may be made to the definition of "landlord" as laid down in section 2(f) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 in which the term has been defined as under:- 'landlord' means the owner of the premises and includes a person who is for the time being authorized or entitled to receive rent in respect of such premises."
' In view of the above definition, both the respondents, who are owners of the premises in dispute, shall be deemed to the landlords of the premises in question.
5. So far as the bona fide requirement of the respondents for the premises in question is concerned it has been stated in her evidence by Mst.Begum Bibi, respondent No,1 at Exh. 5 that she has got three grown up sons and one daughter aged 17 years. She has further stated that one of her sons is married and her another son is also likely to be married, but the marriage is not possible until additional accommodation is available for him and his would-be his wife. The fact that Mst.Begum Bibi has got four grown up children out of whom one son is married and has also got children, is admitted by the appellant's witness namely Saghirul Hassan. In cross-examination he says:-- "The applicants are known to me since last 25/30 years. Mst. Sakina the applicant No,2 has three sons namely Nisar Hussain Shah, Ashiq Hussain Shah and Akhtar Hussain Shah. Nisar Hussain Shah is married and has children also. Ashiq Hussain Shah is engaged. Mst.Sakina applicant No,2 has a daughter also."
In view of this admitted position it can be clearly inferred that the two rooms presently in occupation of the respondents is not sufficient to accommodate so many members. The Rent Controller has therefore rightly come to the conclusion that the premises are required by the respondents for their bona fide use and for the use of their children. No exception can be taken to this finding of the fact recorded by the learned Rent Controller. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs but the appellant is given four months' time to vacate the premises in dispute.