1. ' The appellant/tenant being aggrieved with the order, dated 15-11-1981 passed by -the VII Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi in a Rent Case No,5853/1978, wherein he directed him to hand over vacant possession of premises to respondent has preferred this appeal.
2. ' Facts of this Rent Case are that Mst. Rashida Begum is owner of House constructed on Plot No,LAC/AIC-4S-31/168 (New K.M.C. No,418) situated near Jama Masjid, Mehmoodabad, Allama lqbal Colony, Karachi. She had purchased the above house from Choudhry Muhammad Amin. Appellant is tenant of the above house and has failed to pay rent. She has also requested for vacant possession of the premises for her personal use.
3. ' The appellant filed written statement in which he has disputed the ownership of respondent and stated that she has no title over the property, therefore, there is no relationship of tenant and landlord between them. He has contended that respondent does not require the premises in good faith for her personal use.
4. ' The following issues were framed by the Rent Controller.
5. Issue No,1:- Whether there exists relationship of tenant and landlord between the parties. Issue No,2:- Whether appellant committed default in payment of rent from 1-12-1977.
6. Issue No,3:- Whether the premises in question is required by the respondent for her personal use and occupation. Issue No,4:- What should the order be.
7. ' The parties have adduced oral as well as documentary evidence before Rent Controller in support of their case. Respondent examined herself while appellant examined himself and Syed Asghar Hussain Shah and Rehmat All Qureshi in his support.
8. ' The learned Rent Controller after considering the evidence of both the parties decided issues Nos.1 and 3, in favour of the respondent and allowed her application vide order, dated 15-11-1981 and directed the appellant to hand over vacant possession to the respondent. Hence he has filed this appeal.
9. ' Mr. Ashraf Kazi learned counsel for the appellant contended that Mst. Rasheeda Begum is not the owner of the premises as bale agreement between her and previous owner Muhammad Amin does not confer any title over the property and she cannot be considered as owner, therefore, there is no relationship of tenant and landlord between them. He has submitted that for personal use the condition laid down under section 2(a) of Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 must be observed on the ground of personal use as provided under section 15(vii) of the Ordinance. He has argued that respondent wants to get the premises vacated in order to get higher rent.
10. ' Mr. Farman Ali Hashmi learned counsel submitted that respondent has purchased the house from Choudhry Amin and she is real owner/ landlady of the house and is entitled to receive the rent as well as get the premises vacated according to law. As regard title is concerned he contended that it is for Civil Court to determine which at the best could only be agitated by Muhammad Amin who had sold the premises.
11. ' On the point of default the learned Rent Controller has rightly hold that appellant has not committed any default and on this issue no appeal has been preferred by the respondent, therefore, I do not like to discuss evidence led by the parties on this issue.
12. ' On Issue No,1 Mst.Rasheeda Begum in her affidavit-in-evidence has stated that she has purchased the house in question from Muhammad Amin and she has produced such agreement as Exh.5 and other documents viz. extract of jamabandi of K.M.C. and P.T.I. The letter of Muhammad Amin to Faqir Hussain/Appellant Exh.11, confirms the sale of house to respondent Mst. Rasheeda Begum. Appellant in his affidavit-in-evidence has admitted that he is paying the rent to respondent to avoid the default. He has also stated that he had sent the Rent to respondent but she has refused. Under the circumstances the appellant has accepted the respondent as his landlady, therefore, there exists relationship of A Tenant and Landlord between the appellant and the respondent This issue has been fully discussed by the Rent Controller.
13. ' On Issue of personal requirement the respondent has stated that the premises is adjacent to the house on 120 Sq. Yards consisting of two rooms where she is living which is not sufficient for her family consisting of 7 members as in near future she was going to arrange marriage of her two sons. She has admitted in cross-examination that she a house in Korangi which is not in her occupation and appellant in his affidavit-in-evidence has stated that respondent does not require the house for her personal bona fide need and she wants to get the house vacated in order to get higher rent. He has examined Syed Asghar Hussain Shah and Rehmat Ali Qureshi in support of his contention who have deposed that in their presence she demanded higher rent while they were sitting in the house of appellant.
14. The house in question is adjacent to the premises presently occupied by the respondent. As stated the respondent is living with her seven children in a house constructed on 120 Sq.Yards. Therefore, in my opinion the requirement of the respondent appears to be bona fide.
15. ' In a case Ishaq v. Haji Wali Muhammad 1983 CLC 1683. It has been held that it is a privillege of landlord to select premises he considers most suitable to his needs. In the same case reliance has been placed on the observation of Supreme Court in Sabumal v. Nika Ram 1973 SCMR 183:- "The learned Rent Controller also quoted the observations of the Supreme Court in SabuMal v. Nika Ram on the prerogative and discretion of the landlord in case he has more than one house in the same urban area to select the one of his choice for residence. The observation (with utmost respect) would apply with equal force to the case of choice of portions in the same building owned by him."
16. ' I have perused the record and impugned order of the Rent Controller who has thoroughly discussed the entire evidence adduced by the parties.
17. ' For the reasons discussed above the respondent has proved the requirement of premises in good faith. The order passed by the Rent Controller is according 'to law.
18. ' Accordingly I dismiss the appeal with no order as to costs but allow appellant four months more time to vacate the premises and hand over possession to the respondent.