' Appellant Mrs. Mariana Amin has preferred this appeal against the order of her ejectment from a tenement on Plot No, I/4-A, Block-6, P. E. C. H. Society, Karachi, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge-X/Controller Karachi on 15-8-1982 in Rent Application No, 538 of 1979 filed by the respondent/landlord.
2. The respondent sought ejectment of the appellant on the grounds that he needed the premises for his personal use and also that the appellant had sublet the premises. The appellant resisted the application contending that it had been filed mala fidely as she had declined to increase rent repeatedly. The learned Controller struck following two issues :- (1)Whether the applicant requires the premises in question for his personal bona fide use.
(2)Whether the opponent has sublet the premises without consent of the applicant.
3. The parties adduced evidence. The respondent/applicant filed his own affidavit and that of his son Muhammad Musadiq to reiterate that they needed the premises for their own use. On behalf of the appellant, her husband M. Amin filed his affidavit to refute their evidence. The learned Controller believed the assertion of the respondent and repelled the plea put forth by the appellant and passed the impugned order of ejectment.
4. Mr. Iqbal Ahmed Siddiqui, Advocate for the appellant has urged that the respondent has not established that he needs the premises for his own use. He has pointed out that it has been brought on record that the respondent had let out one room from the premises in his occupation and that fact reacts against his assertion that he needs the premises for accommodating his large family. Of course, it has been stated that the room having been let out has Kutcha construction. But it is confirmed that a room from the premises in occupation of the respondent has been let out after the filing of the ejectment application. The learned Controller seems to have misdirected himself in A recording his conclusions in favour of the respondent by adopting the view that the appellant/tenant had failed to establish that the premises was not required by the respondent/landlord. This view was contrary to what the law requires a landlord to establish for seeking ejectment of the tenant on the ground of personal requirement. Burden lay on the respondent to show that the premises in their occupation is insufficient for their requirements and it was not discharged by him.
5. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order of the learned Controller is set aside. In the circumstances of the case, no order is made for costs.