' This is an appeal under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as Ordinance) against the ejectment order, dated 31st January,1983, passed by XIth Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Karachi.
' Briefly stated the facts are that respondent Mst. Sadaqat Rabbani filed rent application under section 15(2) of the Ordinance in which she stated that respondent is her tenant of house No,R-759 Block No,9, Dastagir Colony Federal 'B' Area, Karachi, at monthly Rent of Rs,150 per month.
' She is in need of her house as presently she is residing with her brother who is occupying rented premises and now it is not possible for her to adjust herself in that house. She also stated that there is default in payment of rent. Appellant filed his written statement wherein he has stated that she is not owner of the property as property is in the name of one Muhammad Umer. He also stated that respondent's attorney refused to accept the rent and that she does not require the premises.
3. On the pleadings of the parties the Rent Controller framed following issues.
(1) Whether there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
(2) Whether appellant caused damage the premises.
(3) Whether respondent requires the premises for her use.
' Issues Nos.1 and 3 have been decided in favour of the respondent and on Issue No,2, findings are against the respondent for which she has not filed any appeal. It is admitted fact that appellant used to pay rent of the house to landlady through Shah Jehan. The sale deed is Exh.4, agreement to sell Exh.5, and Rent Reciept Book Exh.6, have been produced by the / respondent before the Rent Controller. Therefore, there exists relationship of tenant and landlord and findings of the Rent Controller on this point are proper.
4. I have heard Mr. Abdul Majeed Khan Advocate for the appellant and Mr. M. L. Shahani Advocate for the respondent at length.
' Mr.Abdul Majeed Khan has cited the cases PLD 1976, Kar. 832 and NLR 1983 Civil 702 and submitted that respondent has not proved the bona fide requirement. On the other hand Mr. M. L.
Shahani has relied upon the cases NLR 1984 Civil 4, 1982 CLC 2641, 1982 CLC 1444, PLD 1982 Lah.
704, 1984 CLC 364 and NLR 1980 A C 423 on the Point of personal requirement.
5. Respondent landlady in her evidence has stated that since long, she has been requesting the appellant to vacate the house as she wants to live in her house with her children Jawed Akhtar, Parvaiz Ahmed and Khalid Tanwir as none of them have any house of their own. She has stated that she is widow and living with her brother and it is now extremely difficult for her to adjust in the house of her brother who is also living in the rented house.
6. Abdul Salam Attorney of the appellant in his evidence has stated that respondent lady does not require the premises for herself. He has stated that he has not damaged the premises,and not committed any default in making payment of rent. He has not denied contention of the respondent.
7. I have gone through the evidence and case law referred by both the counsel and have come to the conclusion that respondent has proved the A; personal bonafide requirement and she has right to live in her house, with her children.
' This appeal is, therefore dismissed.