1. ' This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Controller whereby the appellant's application for ejectment was dismissed. The appellant is the landlord of the house bearing No,B/21-1720, 1st Floor, Akal Bhonga Lane, Hyderabad. It was let out to respondent in May, 1972 on monthly rent of Rs, 135 and thereafter by consent the rent was increaser to Rs,150. The appellant stated that he is a retired Government servant and has shifted to Karachi alongwith his second wife and children. He is staying with his son from his first wife who lives in a rented house. He pleaded that he has three sons and one daughter from his second wife and putting up with his son who has his own family members. He further pleaded that the relations between the step-mother, and his son, stepbrothers and sisters are not cordial and they cannot amicably live in the house and therefore he requires the disputed premises for his use and for the use of his family members.
2. He further pleaded that due to ill-health he wants to shift to Hyderabad.
3. ' The respondent filed written statement denying all the allegations and stated that the appellant had demanded enhancement in rent from Rs,150 to Rs,250 and as he had declined, out of revenge he filed ejectment application which lacks bona fide. The learned Controller examined the appellant and respondent and another witness, the younger brother of the respondent. In his evidence the appellant has stated all the facts which were mentioned in the application. On the other hand the respondent examined his brother to corroborate his statement that at his shop the appellant had asked him to enhance the rent. This fact was completely denied by the appellant in his statement as well as in the cross-examination.
4. ' The first point for consideration is, whether the appellant has proved his bona fide requirement. It has not been disputed at any stage that the appellant is not living in a house rented by his son.
5. This son has his own family members, and has accommodated the appellant, his wife and four children. The statement of the appellant that his wife, and four children are residing in the same house at Karachi, is fully established. He has also stated that the step-children and step-mother are not amicably living in the house and therefore, he wants to shift from Karachi to Hyderabad.
6. Even if the relations between the family members would have been cordial as the appellant is living in a house taken on rent by his son, on proof of his bona fide requirement he would be entitled to seek relief of ejectment. In the present case the appellant has established that he requires the premises for his own use and for the use of his family members. While rejecting the application the learned Controller seems to be impressed by the fact that the wife of the appellant has not been examined, nor any of his children were examined. In cases where the disputed house is required for the residence of the landlord his wife and dependent children it is not necessary to examine the wife and children. If the case is established by the evidence of the landlord and other witnesses if any, the mere fact that the wife or dependent children have not been examined will not adversely effect the case. The examination of these family members would be necessary only if any special requirement of such family members is pleaded.
7. Now I come to the question, whether the appellant requires the premises bona fide. The element of bona fide in a case of personal requirement is an important factor which affects the discretion of the Controller. If the personal requirement is made a pretext for increasing the rent then certainly no importance can be attached to the personal requirement, as it is tainted with mala fide. In the present case the learned Controller has relied on the evidence of the respondent and his brother Haider Ali and come to the conclusion that the appellant wanted to enhance the rent and as the respondent refused, he filed the ejectment application. How far this conclusion is correct and is borne out by the evidence? Sufficient reliance has been placed by the learned Controller on the appellant's letter dated 17th January, 1979 Exh. 14/A to conclude that the appellant had visited Hyderabad and talked to the respondent in the presence of his brother Haider Ali. In this letter no mention has been made about the enhancement of rent. However, if the statement of the respondent is accepted as correct, the significant aspect is that this letter was not replied by the respondent at all. If the appellant had threatened the respondent to face ejectment in case rent was not enhanced, and thereafter addressed a letter asking him to vacate the premises as he required it for his personal use, it was natural that this letter should have been replied immediately denying the allegation mentioned in the letter. The second letter is Exh.14/B. It is a legal notice issued by the learned counsel for the appellant which was replied on 1st February, 1979 in which it was alleged that the appellant wanted to increase the rent. Thereafter in every letter the same position has been maintained.
8. ' Mr. Aziz Dastagir the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the statement of Haider Ali cannot be accepted as he has given an obliging statement, merely to assist his brother. It seems from Exh.14/A that the appellant had been pressing the respondent to vacate the house as far back as from October, 1978, but no steps were taken by him as the respondent was promising to vacate it. When he failed to fulfil the promise the appellant visited Hyderabad and asked him to vacate the house. The appellant's statement seems' to be consistent and went supported by the letters written by him. The respondent has examined his brother about whom the appellant in his letter Exh.14/A had mentioned that he had opposed his request for vacating the premises. This shows, that from the very beginning he had adopted a hostile attitude. In these circumstances it is not safe to rely on his testimony.
9. ' Mr. Dastagir has contended that where the landlord proves his bona fide needs independently mere demand for enhanced rent will not affect his bona fides. He has referred to PLD 1983 Kar.
606. In this judgment reliance has been placed on Peerzada Rafiq Ahmed v. Ch. Abdul Rehman 1980 SCMR 772 where while approving the rule laid down in Badruddin Hasan Faruqui and others v. Manghi Industrial Home PLD 1976 Kar. 620 the following dictum was laid down:-- "a demand of higher rent by itself does not cast any doubts about the personal bona fide requirements if the factum of bona fide requirement is independently proved."
10. The landlord has to establish his requirement independently but where the requirement is merely a colourable device and rouse to conceal the real object of enhancing the rent, the bona fide requirement can hardly be established.
11. The appellant has established his bona fide need and in, fact on the statement of the respondent and his brother it cannot be concluded that the appellant has filed this application for the purpose of enhancing the rent. In the face of the evidence establishing the bona fide need of the appellant, the respondent's evidence to displace it is sufficiently weak. The learned Controller was impressed by the fact that the respondent is living in a house of one room, and it is not possible that the appellant can stay there with his wife and four children. While considering the bona fide need of the landlord one has to first see whether the accommodation where he is living is sufficient and proper for his requirement. If E it is not sufficient, then the landlord can ask for ejectment, although the disputed house is small. In the present case, the appellant is residing in a house of his son and he wants to get the disputed house vacated in order to have a better and cordial atmosphere. This he can achieve by living separately in a smaller one-roomed house. Mr. Dastagir stated that the respondent is living in a house which consists of two rooms and a verandah. There is no evidence to that effect and the finding of the Controller that there is only one room in the house is based on Exh.20/J which is a letter written by the respondent's Advocate. Whatever may be the accommodation the fact remains that the appellant is not living in a house owned by him and wants to live in his house where he can reside more comfortably and properly than in the house of his son. The disputed house may be small but in the circumstances it is more suitable and will satisfy the requirement of the appellant. He has therefore, established his bona fide requirement.
12. For these reasons the impugned order of the learned Rent Controller is set aside and the appeal is allowed. There) will be no order as to costs. .