1. ' The appellant is a tenant of the respondent. In respect of house No, A-98/8 Azizabad, F.B.Area, Karachi on a monthly rent of Rs,,400, The respondent filed an ejectment application against the appellant under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, on the ground of
(1) default in payment of rent, (2) Bona fide personal requirement, (3) damage caused to the property by the appellant and (4) user of the property for purposes other than it was leased out.
2. The appellant denied all the allegations, however, on assessment or evidence, the learned Controller granted ejectment on the ground that the disputed premises is required by the respondent in good faith for her own occupation and use of her family members,, All other grounds were rejected.
3. ' From the evidence it is plain that the respondent is living with her family members in a house consisting of three rooms built on 120 square yards situated at Dustier Colony. The family members of the respondent include her husband, a (laugher who was at the time of evidence a college student, second (laughter was studying in intermediate, the son was a student of B.Sc. class and the applicant herself. There are five grown-up persons in the family, it is also stated that one daughter has been married, so there are four grown-up persons, out of which two are college and university going students. The house in dispute is built on 200 sq. yds. Consisting of 6 rooms. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that three-room house at Dastagir Colony is sufficient for the needs of the family members of the respondent. The need of a particular family has to be judged from various aspects and circumstance which may include the member or family members, their age and social status in life as well. A family which is more educated having sufficiently good standard of life would not like to live in a smaller house particularly when a bigger and good house is within its reach, means and ownership. No fixed rule can be A laid down for determining the need of any particular person. However, it will entirely depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The learned counsel for the appellant has referred to 1984 CLC 50 in which it was held that a house consisting three rooms was sufficient for a family of 8 members,, The requirement of a person is a question of fact which may differ from case to case and no fixed rule can be laid. In a case a landlord may like that all his grown-up boys and daughters may live properly in separate rooms. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the requirement is merely a desire which does not amount to a bona fide need. In families where children are grown- up and are studying in school, college or university it is necessary to provide them a proper and better accommodation, if it is within the means and within the reach of the parents, so that they may pursue their studies without any disturbance and live in an atmosphere of peace, undisturbed by the other members of the family. This cannot be rule of universal applicability and will depend upon the facts of each case and subject to proof. In the present case I find that the requirement of the respondent is bona fide, and the learned Controller has exercised his discretion properly, and on correct appreciation of facts. For these reasons by a short order the appeal was dismissed and three months' time was granted to the appellant to hand over vacant possession of the disputed house to the respondent.