' Haji Ahmad Zaheer Khan appellant had rented out a flat on the first floor of his building to respondent at Rs,375 per month in the year 1973. This building consists of four flats, two on the ground-floor and two on the first-floor. The appellant himself is residing in one of the flats on the first-floor, while the other flat on first-floor was rented out to the respondent. The two flats on the ground-floor were also on rent.
2. In the year 1979 the appellant filed ejectment application under West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1959 against the respondent on the ground that he required the flat in possession of the respondent for his personal use. The case was contested by the respondent, whereafter issues were framed and after recording evidence the learned Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment application of the appellant. Hence the present appeal.
3. The main ground of the appellant is that he has four children, who were minor at the time when the premises were let out to the respondent and that now they are grown up, therefore, the present flat in which he is residing is not sufficient for his needs.
4. It may be stated that all the four flats in the building in question which is on Plot No,106/C, Block No,6, Federal 'B' Area, Karachi, belong to the appellant. Each flat consists of two bedrooms, one drawing/ dining room and other amenities. The appellant also admitted in his evidence that there is one additional room on the roof of his flat with bathroom etc. It also transpires from the evidence of the appellant that this room is lying vacant. The learned Rent Controller, therefore, came to the conclusion that the present accommodation was quite sufficient for the requirement of the appellant, who had failed to prove his bona fide need.
5. There is an additional circumstance which militates against the plea of bona fide requirement of the appellant. During the pendency of this appeal a flat on the ground-floor had been vacated by the tenant of the appellant. Instead of occupying that flat himself, the appellant rented out that flat to some other tenant, whereupon an application was made by the respondent for additional evidence to bring on record the fact that during the pendency of this appeal the appellant had another flat available for his occupation, but he had rented out the same. On this application Mr. Qutubuddin learned counsel for the appellant gave statement before the Court admitting the above fact. The above application was, therefore, dismissed as having become infructuous.
6. The fact that the appellant had another flat in the same building available for occupation, but instead of occupying the same, he rented it out to another tenant unmistakably points to mala fide of the appellant/ landlord. If he had any bona fide need for additional accommodation, then he could have occupied the flat on the ground-floor which was vacated by his tenant, instead of insisting upon the respondent to vacate that flat. It is an admitted fact that the flat in possession of the respondent is identical with the flat on the ground-floor, so far as accommodation was concerned.
' I, therefore, hold that the learned Rent Controller had rightly come to the conclusion that the appellant had failed to prove his bona fide requirement. Consequently the appeal is dismissed with costs.