' This appeal has been filed by the appellant/tenant against the order dated 15th February,1982, passed by the Rent Controller No,XVI, Karachi in Rent Case No,134/1980, whereby he directed the tenant/appellant to vacate the premises on an application filed under section 15 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979.
' The facts briefly stated are that the respondent/landlord, purchased the property bring No,19/10 Survey Sheet No,35-P/1 situated in Traders Housing Society, Karachi from its then owner (one Mr.Moinuddin) by a registered deed of conveyance dated 23rd August,1979. Since the appellant was the tenant of half portion of the said building at the rate of Rs,250 p.m. When the building was purchased, the new owner i,e, the respondent abovenamed, served notice dated 26th September,1979 upon the appellant/ tenant intimating him about the change of the ownership and called upon him to vacate the portion in his possession as the same was required by her for her personal use and occupation, bona fide. As the tenant abovenamed failed to vacate the premises, the new landlord filed the abovementioned ejectment application on the plea that she is residing in a rented premises comprising of 1 room only since about 7 years, that she has 7 children, that her husband is a businessm an and that her two sons Shahid Ikram and Sohail Ikram, aged about 22 and 23 years, respectively, who are doing business, were about to get married. She further pleaded that her two daughters are also grown up and they also require separate rooms to live in and also for purposes of their studies. It was also pleaded that the rented accommodation in which she resides with her family is not sufficient for her use and occupation or of the members of her family; and that she has no other property in her name or in the name of any of her sons or daughters, and that she has not vacated any property before filing of the case.
2. The above application was contested by the appellant/tenant, who filed his written statement wherein, inter alia, it was claimed that he is a tenant in perpetuity created by the previous owner Mr. Moinuddin, that he alongwith the tenant of the other half portion jointly offered to purchase the entire property for a total consideration of Rs,3,00,000 and that being in occupation of the property as a tenant he has precedence/ pre-emption right to purchase the property. A number of other pleas were taken but the following issue alone was pressed for determination at the trial before the learned Rent Controller:-- "Whether the applicant needs the house in good faith for her personal use and that of her children and husband ?"
3. The learned Rent Controller after recording the evidence and hearing the Advocates for the parties allowed the application by his Order dated 15th February, 1982 and directed the appellant/tenant to vacate the premises in question within 120 days of the order.
4. Against the above order the appellant has preferred this appeal under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance,1979 in this Court.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant raised the following two grounds in support of this appeal:- -
(i) That a permanent tenancy was created in favour of the appellant by the original owner Mr. Moinuddin and, therefore, the new landlord/respondent could not seek his ejectment.
(ii) That the appellant and the tenant of the other portion, jointly offered to purchase the entire building wherein the disputed premises is situated, for Rs,2,50,000 to Rs,3,00,000 and being tenants in occupation they had preferable rights to purchase the property.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and find that the contentions raised as above cannot succeed.
(i) As regards the first point raised as above the learned counsel for the appellant was unable to point out anything on the record which could substantiate the claim of the appellant that permanent tenancy was created in his favour by the original landlord, Mr. Moinuddin. No document or other admissible evidence was produced in support of such a claim. It may be mentioned that the learned counsel frankly conceded that a tenancy in perpetuity could be created only by a document in writing and registered as required by section 17 of the Registration Act. Reference may here be usefully made to the case of Abdul Majeed Khan v. Nabiuddin P L 0 1970 SC 465, wherein the Honourable Supreme Court observed as under:- "According to its contents, it was plainly a lease-deed for a period of more than one year, and, therefore, it required registration and was inadmissible in evidence for want of it. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended before us that this deed could be utilised under section 49 of the Registration Act for the collateral purpose of proving that the appellant was in possession of the premises as a perpetual tenant. The argument is ex facie fallacious as the appellant was already in possession of the property before the execution Of this document and did not gain possession of it under this deed. The result reached by the High Court, is, therefore, clearly correct that the defendant-appellant has failed to prove that he had become permanent tenant of the premises on payment of Rs,1,500 as salami, as alleged by him."
Therefore, in the absence of any registered document creating any alleged lease hold rights as a permanent tenant in favour of the appellant/ tenant, his status would be only that of a tenant from month to month.
' Furthermore the tenant/appellant has miserably failed to prove that any tenancy in perpetuity at any time was created in his favour by Mr. Moinuddin, the original owner as contended.
' The first plea, therefore, on facts as well as law fails.
7. As regards the second contention, the learned counsel was unable to point out any law which creates any right of pre-emption in favour of the tenant/appellant or otherwise any obligation upon the owner of the property in question so as to oblige him to sell the building, in which the disputed tenement is situated, to the appellant/the tenant.. The sale of a building is a matter of a contract between the parties which could not come into existence unless the parties mutaually agree to sell and puchase the property. According to the appellant's own case, the previous owner Mr. Moinuddin did not accept the offer allegedly made by the appellant and the other co-tenant.
' Thus, there is no substance in the second ground raised by the appellant.
8. I may here point out that on the evidence on record it has been proved that the respondent has a large family consisting of 7 children, out of whom two sons and two daughters are grown up and that she is presently residing alongwith her children and the husband in a rented house with insufficient accommodation and that the tenement in question is required by her for her own use and occupation and for the use of the members of her family, bona fide. She is thus entitled to get the said tenement vacated and to live in the building owned by her on the principle laid down in the case of Mumtaz Hussain v. Mohammad Iqbal 1984 SCMR 576.
9. For the reasons discussed above this appeal is dismissed. The appellant is granted four months time to vacate the premises.