1. ' This appeal has arisen from the Rent Case No, 1235 of 1977 filed by Jalaluddin against his tenant Muhammad Umar Pasha, seeking ejectment of the latter from the premises in dispute. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs by short order dated 16-4-1984, for reasons to be recorded separately. By the said short order the appellants were, at the request of their counsel, allowed to retain the possession of the disputed premises for a period of four months where after they were directed to hand over the vacant possession to the respondent/landlord. Meanwhile the appellants were required to deposit monthly rent regularly in the Court and in case of default made by them in this behalf, it was ordered that they would be ejected without any further notice. Following are the reasons in support of the short order.
2. ' The case of the respondent/landlord (hereinafter called as the landlord) as disclosed in the ejectment application, filed on 13-4-1977, is that Muhammad Umar Pasha predecessor-in-interest of the appellants (hereinafter called the tenant) was in occupation of the residential house on Plot No,16, Row No,4, Sub-Block H, Block-1, Nazimabad, Karachi on monthly rent of Rs,150, The said Muhammad Umar Pasha committed default in payment of rent from November, 1976. It was further pleaded in the ejectment application that as the landlord was residing in one-room house with hit large family consisting of three grown-up sons and several other Members, he required the demised premises for his own use. Even the marriage of his two sons, Anwar Ahmed and lqbal Ahmed Was held up for want of accommodation. The landlord accordingly intimated the tenant of his requirements by the letter dated 22-2-1977 requesting him to vacate the house. As no response was made by the tenant, the ejectment case referred to above was filed against him. The tenant resisted the ejectment application denying that he was either defaulter or that the house in his occupation was needed by the landlord for his own use. According to him the house the landlord is presently occupying consists of more than one room with milk-shop annexed thereto.
3. ' The landlord examined himself, beside Ainuddin the previous landlord and Meharban Ali in support of his case whereas on the side of the tenant, Muhammad Umar Pasha, himself and Ghafran Hussain were produced in evidence. After taking into consideration the evidence led by the parties the learned Rent Controller by his order, dated 27-10-1981 allowed the ejectment application, directing the tenant to hand over vacant possession of the premises to the landlord within 90 days of the order. Aggrieved by this order the appellants have come in this appeal.
4. ' The case of the landlord is that the default in payment of rent has been committed from November, 1976. On the other hand the appellants' plea is that the landlord was entitled to receive rent from 15-12-1976 or on which he had purchased the premises in dispute. It is not disputed that the landlord purchased the demised premises from Ainuddin on 15-12-1976. But Ainuddin, the previous landlord, has stated in his evidence that the rent was paid to him by the tenant up to August, 1976 and, therefore, he by notice dated 21-12-1976 told the tenant to pay rent from 4th August, 1976 onward to the new landlord. Admittedly the tenant has paid rent to the landlord for the entire period following his purchase of the disputed premises. However, there is controversy between the parties over the rent for two months prior to transfer of the house to the new landlord.
5. The tenant took the stand that he would pay the rent for the months to the previous landlord to whom it was due.
6. ' The question arose if the tenant could insist on payment of the rent to the previous landlord despite his instructions to the tenant to pay the same to the new landlord and whether the tenant would be liable to ejectment on this account. The learned Rent Controller took the view that the rent due from the tenant from August, 1976 was to be paid by him either to the previous landlord or to the present landlord. He further held that since the previous landlord had transferred his rights of the recovery of rent from August, 1976 to the new landlord, the tenant was liable to pay the rent for the said Period to the new landlord. The tenant's failure to pay rent for the months of August and September, 1976 either to the previous landlord or to the present one, in his opinion, has rendered him liable to ejectment.
7. ' In support of above view, I have come across the case reported as MessRs,' Adil and Brothers Karachi Ltd. v. MessRs,' Amin Art Press and another PLD 1976 Kar. 53 wherein it was held: "Under section 8 of the Transfer of Property Act, transfer of property passed forthwith to the transferee all rights, title, and interest which the transferor is then capable of passing in the property and the legal incidents thereof. In the sale-deed executed in the instant case, the landlord transferred all his rights, title, interest in the property to the appellant. On the date of transfer, the order passed by the Rent Controller directing eviction of the respondent/tenants for the default committed by the latter existed in favour of landlord which conferred right, interest benefit and advantage on the latter to evict the respondents-tenants and obtained vacant possession of the premises. Default is committed in respect of premises and is not personal. Thus, when the respondent No,2 sold and trans ferred the building with all his rights, title, interest, benefits and advantages in respect thereof to the appellant, the benefit of the default conferring the right to eject also passed to the appellant under the sale-deed as well as under the Transfer of Property Act .
8. In the instant case it is not denied that the previous landlord transferred his right of collecting rent for the months prior to the sale of the premises to the new landlord and intimated the tenant accordingly by the latter referred to above. By the said letter the tenant was required to pay the rent for the said months to the new landlord. However, it is an admitted position that the tenant has not paid the rent for the disputed months to the new landlord. Despite his insistence to pay the rent for these months to the previous landlord he has not paid the rent even to him. Consequently the learned Rent Controller has come to the right conclusion that the tenant has made default in payment of rent.
9. ' As for the other ground of personal requirement, the landlord's case is that he is living with his family consisting of three grown-up sons and several other members in one-room house and that the marriage of his two elders sons Anwar Ahmad and Iqbal Ahmed is held up for want of accommodation. On perusal of the written statement filed by the tenant, it would appear that the tenant has not denied the size of the landlord's family. As is clear from para 4 of his written statement he has also shown ignorance as to whether the marriage of landlord's two sons has been withheld on account of accommodation. The plea taken by the tenant is that the landlord has not only better house in Jalalabad adjacent to Nazimabad No, 1 which is close to his Jalal Milk Shop but also he owns several houses and milk shops in the city of Karachi. The landlord has denied that he lives at Jalalabad adjacent to Nazimabad No,1 or that he has two houses--One in Ranchore Lines and another at Jalalabad. He has added that he lives in the rented house in Ranchore Lines whereas at Jalalabad, he has only a but where he keeps his milk pots.
10. ' In order to prove that the landlord lives in a better house at Jalalabad, the learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon some documents. The first document referred by him in this connection is a copy of electoral roll which according to him shows that the landlord resides at Jalalabad. I have gone through the said copy of the electoral roll. Of course it shows that one Jalaluddin son of Shamsuddin resides at C/36 at Jalalabad. However the landlord has denied that he lives at Jalalabad. No question has been put to him that the premises at Jalalabad he is alleged occupying bears No,C/36, The learned counsel for the appellants has also referred to one postal acknowledgment receipt in an attempt to show that the letter was addressed to the landlord at the address of his Jalalabad house and receipt thereof was acknowledged. On careful perusal of the receipt, it would appear that the address of the landlord as given in the said receipt was House No, C/41 which has subsequently been changed to C136 to tally with House No, given in the said electoral roll.
11. ' Such a tempering makes the tenant's plea wholly doubtful. In any case the entries in electoral roll are not conclusive proof of the voter's permanent residence. It is common knowledge that some persons are registered as voters at more than one place. In that case the only restriction on them is to cast their vote at one of such places. It is conceded even by the landlord himself that at Jalalabad he has hut-like premises where he keeps his milk pots. The tenant has not been able to prove that the accommodation in 'possession of the landlord at Jalalabad or elsewhere is big enough to meet the requirements of his big family. On the contrary as has been pointed out above the tenant is totally unaware of the size of the landlord's family. He also does not know if his two grown-up sons have postponed their marriage for want a suitable accommodation.
12. ' Even if it be assumed that as pleaded by the tenant the landlord, has residential accommodation at Jalalabad, it remains to be explained as to how and in what circumstances the landlord is also occupying the one-room rented house in the Ranchore Lines. Of course according to the tenant, the landlord does not live in any house at Ran chore Lines. As against his solitary word the landlord is supported by the previous landlord who has stated on oath that the landlord lives with his family in one-room house in the Ranchore Lines. He has also produced ration card and rent receipt which too corroborate the landlord that he lives with large family in the rented house at Ranchore Lines.
13. His family, according to the landlord, consists of eleven members including three grown-up sons.
14. This has not been challenged by the tenant who has on the contrary shown total ignorance in that respect. The fact that the landlord lives with large family in one-room house at Ranchore Lines is enough to establish bona fides of his need for the disputed premises. Even otherwise the landlord who wishes to move into his own house is entitled to do so. In this letter addressed to the tenant he had made it clear that he had purchased the house in dispute for his own use and requirements.
15. The letter served on the tenant is dated February 22, 1977. It appears that he sent this letter to him only two months after purchasing the house.
16. ' In support of his case the learned counsel for the landlord has placed reliance on the case of Sabu Mal v. Kika Ram alias Haman Das 1973 SCMR 185 wherein it was held: "If a landlord possesses more than one house in the same urban area, the choice as to the house in which he would like to live himself is surely a matter within his prerogative and discretion and the law does not give either to the tenant or to the Rent Controller, the power to determine where the landlord should personally reside."
17. In the instant case even if the plea of the tenant is believed that the landlord has another house at Jalalabad close to Nazimabad besides the demised premises, both the houses situating in the same urban area, the choice lies with the landlord to live in any one of the said house. Accordingly he cannot be prohibited from getting the disputed house vacated only because he has another house also in the same vicinity.
18. ' It is a common ground that the dispute between the parties over the premises in question has dragged them even to police. According to the tenant, the landlord tried to harass him with the assistance of the Government's men and therefore he lodged complaint with police. On the other hand the landlord's explanation in this connection is that it is the tenant who has got him harassed and humiliated through police. The evidence is not lacking that the tenant has been considering himself superior in status and social standing to the landlord who is admittedly an ordinary milkman. It is difficult to believe that, a man of the landlord's status could harass the tenant. It is the tenant's own admission that initially he had approached the police. It appears that the tenant seems to have used the police in an attempt to silence the landlord and make him give up his demand for the house.
19. The upshot of the above discussion is that the conclusions reached by the learned Controller are correct. Thus, landlord has proved his case on both accounts default an payment of rent and personal requirement. Accordingly the appeal was dismissed.