1. ' This First Rent Appeal is filed against impugned order dated .5-12-1983 of learned XV Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Karachi, whereby ejectment has been granted on the ground of requirement of premises for personal need.
2. ' Briefly stated the relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that respondent before me namely Jamil Ahmad Khan is landlord and he filed an application for ejectment against appellant before me namely Sarwar Muhammad, who is tenant, under section 15 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 on the ground that the same were required for the personal need of the landlord, who is an old man and has serious eye trouble and further that accommodation in his occupation was insufficient for his family in which there are four grown-up sons and daughters, The accommodation in question is half portion on the ground floor. The rent is Rs, 200 per month.
3. Landlord himself lives on the first floor. Tenant filed written statement before the learned Rent Controller and denied that landlord required premises bona fide for his personal use. In the evidence landlord examined himself three other witnesses namely Abdul Wahid, Muhammad Zubair and Mashooq Ali. On the other hand tenant examined himself and one other witness namely Abrar Ahmad Khan.
4. ' Evidence on the record is to be assessed to find out whether order of ejectment is properly passed in favour of the landlord. In this case premises were sought on the ground that they were required for the personal need of the landlord. Landlord has stated in his application for ejectment that he is an old man suffering from high blood pressure and serious eye disease. He lived on the first floor of the house owned by him and that accommodation was insufficient for his family of six persons. In his affidavit of evidence the landlord has stated that he was not .maintaining good health and his eyesight was also very weak. He reiterated that his accommodation on the first floor was insufficient for his family of six me cabers in which there were grown-up sons and daughters, Landlord further stated that he found it difficult to go up and down the stairs of his First Floor accommodation due to his ill-health and weak eyesight. Further Doctor had also advised him to avoid stain and live on the ground floor. Landlord has produced a certificate dated 1-1-1980 from the Doctor, who has certified that landlord was suffering from Hypertension and Palpitation. He was advised complete bed rest and his movements were restricted. He was living on First Rloor and he was strictly advised to live on the ground floor. This certificate of the Doctor is not exhibited.
5. Landlord has further elaborated in his evidence that his whole house is built on a plot of 200 sq. yards. This house is three storied. Tenant lived in half portion on the ground floor. Other half portion on the ground floor was in possession of the landlord but it was not sufficient hence landlord wanted half portion in occupation of tenant. Landlord has further stated that he had rented out entire Second Floor, because it was not needed by him. He had offered accommodation to the tenant on the Second Floor, it lieu of accommodation on the ground floor but this offer was refused.
6. It is further stated by the landlord that he has three sons and a daughter and one nephew was also living with him. His eldest son is adult and his second son was also 22 years old. Suggestion was made to the landlord in cross-examination that he had filed application for ejectment mala finely and the real purpose was to enhance rent. This suggestion is denied by the landlord. P.W. 2 is Abdul Waheed, whose affidavit of evidence is on the record. He has stated that his daughter was living in the other portion on the ground floor and the possession was handed over to the landlord, which cannot be utilized by him as he needs the other portion in occupation of the tenant. This witness has been cross-examined but there is nothing in the cross-examination to suggest that this witness has given false evidence and his evidence should not be relied upon. P.W. 3 is Muhammad Zubair Farooqui. His affidavit of evidence is on the record but he was not cross-examined, rather he was not offered for cross-examination. P.W. 4 is Mashooq Ali. His affidavit of evidence is on the record in which it is stated that landlord is not maintaining good health and has a very weak eyesight and further the landlord finds it difficult to go on the First Floor. In the cross-examination this witness has stated that he and applicant offer prayers in the mosque. Suggestion was made to this witness in cross-examination that he had filed an ejectment case against his tenant in which the present landlord was cited as a witness which is denied by him. There is nothing adverse in the cross-examination of this witness to imply that his evidence is unreliable. Landlord was present in the Court and I had seen him and could justifiably observe that he is an old man with weak health, wearing glasses and was finding his way with difficulty. So far landlord is concerned, his plea was, that he required premises for his personal need. To prove that he needed premises bona finely, he has produced sufficient evidence of satisfactory nature. He is supported by the witnesses who are reliable. On the other hand it is alleged by the tenant that need of the landlord was not bona fide but mala fide. It is for the tenant to prove that the need of the landlord was mala fide. In the written statement tenant had alleged that landlord demanded enhanced rent but no further clarification was made as to what was ' the enhanced amount of rent demanded by the landlord. When landlord was in the witness-box, no suggestion was made to him that he had demanded enhanced rent from the tenant. Some suggestions were made to the landlord that he had gone to India and to Hajj alone but the landlord denied these suggestions and stated that he had gone in the company of others, Tenant stated in his affidavit of evidence that on the ground floor there are two independent tenements out of which one is in his occupation. Landlord had entire first floor and half portion of the ground floor in his occupation which was sufficient for him. It was alleged by the tenant that intention of the landlord was to enhance rent and he demanded such enhanced rent which was not accepted by the tenant. In cross-examination tenant has admitted that landlord has recently retired from Government service. It is admitted that landlord offered tenant accommodation on the second floor in lieu of the accommodation on the ground floor but the same was refused, on the ground that there was Murghi Khana on the second floor and there was no drainage on the second floor. Learned counsel for the landlord stated at the Bar that after the offer was refused by the tenant, landlord rented out accommodation on the second floor. It was also denied that there was any Murghi Khana or lack of drainage on the second floor. It was stated in the evidence by the tenant that landlord could go and offer prayers in the mosque in the neighborhood by climbing the stairs, Abrar Ahmad Khan witness of tenant in his affidavit of evidence also stated that landlord was seen coming and going to his house without any difficulty and could climb stairs of the mosque to offer prayers, This witness in his cross- examination admitted that he did not offer prayers in mosque "DAILUS-SALAM", where landlord offered prayers, He further admitted that he had never gone to the house of the landlord.
7. ' He further admitted that he was informed by the landlord about the operation of his eyes. He denied suggestion that he used to take meals with the tenant but admitted that he was a friend of tenant. He further admitted that he had come to the Court to give evidence at the instance of tenant. He claimed ignorance about the facts as to where his affidavit of evidence was drafted.
8. Tenant has failed to produce satisfactory evidence to show that intention of the landlord was mala fide. Plea that intention of landlord was to enhance the rent was an afterthought and was not substantiated. Abrar Ahmad Khan witness of the tenant has not been able to give formidable support to the tenant as is manifest from his cross-examination. On the other hand evidence produced by the landlord to prove that he needed premises for his own need and for the need of his family members is sufficient and satisfactory. Landlord has proved his bona fide hence order passed by the learned Rent Controller for ejectment in favour of landlord on the ground of personal need is sustainable and is hear by maintained. Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
9. Tenant is directed to hand over vacant possession to the landlord within three months from the date of this order.