' Ejectment Application No, 4365 of 1977 was filed by the appellant/landlord on 11-12-1977 before Rent Controller for the ejectment of the respondent/tenant on the grounds of default, using the premise for commercial purposes whereas the premises had been rented out for residential purposes, and for bona fide requirement of the landlord and his children. The respondent filed a written statement and opposed the ejectment application. On behalf of the appellant, the landlord himself gave evidence and his son Sajjad Haider also appeared in the witness-box. Respondent examined himself in opposing the ejectment application. By order dated 26-5-1980 the ejectment application was dismissed by the Rent Controller. The appellant/tenant has filed this First Rent Appeal under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. I have heard Mr. Liaquat Merchant, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Mahmood Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent.
2.Learned counsel for the appellant has not pressed this appeal on the issues of default and using the premises for commercial purposes, and as such the only question which requires consideration is whether the finding of the Rent Controller on the ground of bona fide requirement is proper or not. It is an admitted position that the appellant has three sons and one daughter. The appellant resides in the house of his wife which has four bed rooms plus dining/drawing room. The premises in question are on the ground floor of the house of the appellant. It is an admitted position that after the filing of the ejectment case, the daughter of the appellant with her husband and family has shifted to the upper floor of the appellant's house. The appellant, in his ejectment application, had pleaded that he required the ground floor premises of his house in occupation of the respondent for his children's use. In para 7 of the ejectment application it was averred as follows:- "That the applicant requires the said premises in occupation of the opponent for his children's use bona fide. The applicant's children are grown up and the premises will be required to set them independent. The present premises in which the applicant is residing is completely insufficient and inadequate for their residence. The applicant has recently got married his daughter who urgently needs a place for her residence near the house of the appellant for her convenience."
' The evidence shows that the appellant has three sons and one daughter apart from his wife and that all the children are grown up. The need of the daughter is no longer to be considered as after the filing of the ejectment application, the upper floor of the house of the appellant had become vacant and as observed earlier, appellant's daughter and her husband shifted to that portion.
According to the appellant's case therefore the present accommodation in his wife's house which consists of 4 bed rooms was not sufficient and he required mouse accommodation for his children.
The Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the appellant had not proved his case and the ejectment application on the ground of personal requirements was also dismissed. It has come in evidence of the appellant that he stays in one room with his wife and one room is used by him as library and one room is used by his servant. According to the appellant, therefore, there remains only one bed room for his three sons. According to the evidence one son had gone to Canada and he was expected to come back shortly. It was stated in the evidence of the appellant that one of his sons was getting married. The son of the appellant who was getting married also gave evidence. It is stated by Mr. Liaquat Merchant, learned counsel for the appellant that at the time the evidence was recorded this son had not been married but since then that son has married and there is now an additional member in the family to be accommodated. On the basis of the evidence on record, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, a case of personal bona fide requirement of the sons of the appellant for the premises in occupation of the respondent had therefore been established.
3. According to Mr.Mahmood Ahmad, learned counsel for the respondent, the claim of the appellant that one room was being used as a library and one room by his servant shows the mala fides of the appellant and that four bed rooms were sufficient for the appellant, his wife and three sons even if it is accepted that one son in the meantime had got married. According to learned counsel no case has been made out for upsetting the order of the Rent Controller dismissing the ejectment application.
4. In my view, on the basis of the evidence on record, a case of personal bona fide requirement for additional accommodation for the children of the appellant had been made out. Evidence shows that there are four bed rooms in the house of the wife of the appellant, where the appellant and his family resides. Evidence further shows that one room is being used as a library by the appellant.
There is nothing in the cross-examination to disbelieve this assertion. In fact there is no cross- examination on this point at all. Use of a room for the purposes of a library by an educated family is not an unreasonable use and particularly in the facts of this case where there was no cross- examination on this point. It is further natural to accept that in the normal course of events one of the sons must have got married as A was submitted by learned counsel for the respondent and this married son would require one or more rooms for himself, his wife and his family. That as one bed room is in use of the appellant and his wife and the other bed room is being used as a library, the appellant and his family are left with only 2 bed rooms and the demand of the appellant for additional accommodation for his sons with one son now married, was reasonable as two remaining bed rooms would be insufficient for his children and their families. In my view the appellant had established his case on the ground of bona fide person requirement and the learned Rent Controller had not considered and appreciated the evidence properly.
5. As a result, F.R.A. No, 578 of 1980 is allowed, the order dated 26-5-1980 of the Rent Controller is set aside to the extent it relates to the ground of personal requirement and ejectment No, 4365/77 filed by the appellant is granted on the ground of personal requirement. The respondent is allowed time till 30-6-1984 to vacate the premises subject to payment/deposit of rent.
' There will be no order as to costs.