1. ' This is an appeal directed against the order passed by the Controller whereby ejectment application has been granted on the ground that respondent requires the premises for his personal bona fide need and for his children. The respondent filed an ejectment application on the ground that he requires the premises for his bona fide use and occupation and his family members which consists of his two sons and 6 daughters. They are residing on the first floor of the disputed premises which consists of two rooms with verandah. The respondent further pleaded that he is a heart patient and had first attack in January 1979 when he was posted in Libya. It was followed by a second attack in April 1976. He further averred that he is unable to exert and has been advised by the doctor to avoid ascending the stairs. After the heart attack he was retired from service and is living in Karachi. The appellant filed written statement denying all the allegations. It was pleaded that the first floor consists of two rooms measuring 10 x 11 and 20 x 11 with verandah. It was further stated that the respondent had selected first floor for his family so that he could use second floor of the building. The appellant further offered that she was prepared to shift on the first floor in exchange with ground floor.
2. ' The respondent examined his brother who is his attorney. He deposed the facts stated in the application and produced the documents in support of the respondent's case. On the other hand the appellant has examined herself. On assessment of evidence on record the learned Controller held that the respondent is a heart patient and requires the premises bona fide for himself and his family members.
3. ' Mr.Badrul Alam the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the respondent has not examined himself or any of his family members or his children and therefore his bona fide is not established. In this regard the learned counsel has referred to P L 0 1977 Lah.1094, 1981 CLC 327 and 1977 CLC 367. Relying on the observation made in these authorities the learned counsel contended that as the respondent did not examine himself it is fatal to his case and therefore although he may establish that he has a large family his bona fide is not proved. The rule laid down by these authorities is that where the landlord files application for ejectment on the ground of his bona fide requirement and that of his family member then he should show reasonable cause for occupying a particular property and if he fails to make out a case other evidence will be of no avail. In this context it was held that it is always the statement of landlord as well as the person for whose requirment the premises is sought to be vacated is most relevant. This rule has to be applied with reference to the facts and circumstances of each case. It has never been the strict rule that in every case for personal bona fide requirement the landlord or the members of family for whom it is required should be produced and examined. In a case where the requirement is pleaded specifically and particularly relating to the need of a family member, then it may be necessary that such family member may be examined so that at least the facts relating to his requirement may be put to the test of cross-examination. In the present case the respondent has pleaded that he is a heart patient and the premises is required for the family members who are his wife and dependent children. Even from the evidence of the appellant it is clearly established that the appellant's family consists of his wife, two sons and six daughters who except the youngest child are studying in school and college. The appellant has stated that the accommodation on the first floor consists of two rooms and verandah. In these admitted facts and circumstances the appellant's bona fide requirement cannot be doubted. The respondent has examined his younger brother as his attorney. The facts stated in the application have been reiterated in his affidavit of the evidence. Considering the undisputed nature of the facts in this case, it was not necessary that the respondent who is a sick person suffering from heart trouble should have been examined.
4. ' Mr.Badrul Alam the learned counsel next contended that the bona fide of the respondent is also not established because he had demanded rent of Rs,250 instead of Rs,200. From the evidence this fact has not been established. The learned counsel has referred the Exh.0/5 in which there is an endorsement of the respondent that the rent in future shall be recovered at the rate of Rs,250 but it was scored off and therefore there was no intention to increase the rent nor the same was demanded by the respondent. This endorsement was made in January 1975 whereas the ejectment application has been filed in 1978. The period of three years has elapsed and the respondent has not even made demand for the higher rent. From this evidence the bona fide of the respondent cannot be doubted. The respondent has established his bona fide requirement by proving that the accommodation available to him is not sufficient for the requirement of his dependent children and wife. The question of exchange does not arise because the respondent requires the entire premises including the first floor and the ground floor. Mr.Fazal Bhoy the learned Advocate for the respondent stated that the respondent will occupy the first floor and ground floor and therefore the question of exchange does not arise. The appeal is therefore dismissed. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case the appellant is directed to hand over the vacant possession of the respondent's case. On the other hand the appellant has examined herself. On assessm ent of evidence on record the learned Controller held that the respondent is a heart patient and requires the premises bona fide for himself and his family members.
5. ' Mr.Badrul Alam the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the respondent has not examined himself or any of his family members or his children and therefore his bona fide is not established. In this regard the learned counsel has referred to PLD 1977 Lah.1094, 1981 CLC 327 and 1977 CLC 367. Relying on the observation made in these authorities the learned counsel contended that as the respondent did not examine himself it is fatal to his case and therefore although he may establish that he has a large family his bona fide is not proved. The rule laid down by these authorities is that where the landlord files application for ejectment on the ground of his bona fide requirement and that of his family member then he should show reasonable cause for occupying a particular property and if he fails to make out a case other evidence will be of no avail. In this context it was held that it is always the statement of landlord as well as the person for whose requirement the premises is sought to be vacated is most relevant. This rule has to be applied with reference to the facts and circumstances of each case. It has never been the strict rule that in every case for personal bona fide requirement the landlord or the members of family for whom it is required should be produced and examined. In a case where the requirement is pleaded specifically and particularly relating to the need of a family member, then it may be necessary that such family member may be examined so that at least the facts relating to his requirement may be put to the test of cross-examination. In the present case the respondent has pleaded that he is a heart patient and the premises is required for the family members who are his wife and dependent children. Even from the evidence of the appellant it is clearly established that the appellant's family consists of his wife, two sons and six daughters who except the youngest child are studying in school and college. The appellant has stated that the accommodation on the first floor consists of two rooms and verandah. In these admitted facts and circumstances the appellant's bona fide requirement cannot be doubted. The respondent has examined his younger brother as his attorney. The facts stated in the application have been reiterated in his affidavit of the evidence. Considering the undisputed nature of the facts in this case, it was not necessary that the respondent who is a sick person suffering from heart trouble should have been examined.
6. ' Mr.Badrul Alam the learned counsel next contended that the bona fide of the respondent is also not established because he had demanded rent of Rs,250 instead of Rs,200. From the evidence this fact has not been established. The learned counsel has referred the Exh.O/5 in which there is an endorsement of the respondent that the rent in future shall be recovered at the rate of Rs,250 but it was scored off and therefore there was no intention to increase the rent nor the same was demanded by the respondent. This endorsement was made in January 1975 whereas the ejectment application has been filed in 1978. The period of three years has elapsed and the respondent has not even made demand for the higher rent. From this evidence the bona fide of the respondent cannot be doubted. The respondent has established his bona fide requirement by proving that the accommodation available to him is not sufficient for the requirement of his dependent children and wife. The question of exchange does not arise because the respondent requires the entire premises including the first floor and the ground floor. Mr.Fazal Bhoy the learned Advocate for the respondent stated that the respondent will occupy the first floor and ground floor and therefore the question of exchange does not arise. The appeal is therefore dismissed. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the disputed premises to the respondent within six months provided she continues to pay the rent regularly.
7. ' The appeal is dismissed.