' This appeal is directed against the order dated 24-5-1984 passed by the learned XIXth Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller in Rent Case No, 572 of 1983 filed by the respondent on two grounds namely, the default for the period commencing from June, 1982 to January, 1983 and personal requirement. The above application was resisted by the present appellant. The learned Rent Controller, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed the following three issues: "(1) Whether the opponent has failed to pay rent to the applicant since, June, 1982? If so its effects?
(2) Whether the case premises are needed by the applicant for her own and her son's use in good faith?
(3) What should the order be?"
2. The respondent examined her son and attorney lqbal, one Abdul Ghaffar and Tariq son of Dr. Abdul Sattar Chundrigar the father-in-law of P.W. Lqbal; whereas the appellant examined himself, his wife Roshan Ara and one Shah Nawaz. The learned Rent Controller after hearing the parties by the order under appeal allowed the above application on both the grounds. The appellant being aggrieved by the above order has filed the present appeal.
3. (a)In support of the above appeal Mr. Allauddin Ansari learned counsel for the appellant has urged as follows:-
(i) That since at no point of time the respondent had issued any rent receipt the learned Rent Controller could not have recorded the finding of default in favour of the respondent in view of the remission of rent through money order being the rent of February, 1983.
(ii) That the respondent has failed to prove the bona fide personal requirement of P.W. Lqbal's father-in-law and that factually the respondent has more accommodation in the premises occupied by her at present than the premises in suit.
(b) On the other hand Mr. Suleman Kassam learned counsel for the respondent has contended as under:- ' paper and that the learned Rent Controller on the basis of the evidence on record have recorded the finding on the question of default in favour of the respondent.
(ii) That there was no legal requirement to prove the personal bona fide requirement of P.W. Lqbal's father-in-law and that even otherwise the above requirement has been proved.
4. Adverting to the question of default, it may be observed the the appellant himself suggested to the respondents son and attorney lqbal that the rent up to May, 1982 was paid. Furthermore, P.W.
Ghaffa who is admittedly related to the appellant has deposed that he had gone to the appellant asking him to clear the arrears but he showed his inability on account of financial difficulties. This statement has also not been challenged in the cross-examination of this witness. I, therefore, concur with the finding of the learned Rent Controller on the question of default.
5. As regards the question of personal requirement there is abundant evidence on record. It has been proved that the respondent is putting upon the first floor of the house belonging to the mother-in-law of her son P.W. Iqbal. It has further been proved that P.W. Lqbal's in-laws with their children were serving in Sierras Leone (West Africa) and in January, 1982 they have returned from there to settle down permanently in Karachi. This fact has even been admitted by the appellant himself in the cross-examination. It has also been proved that the respondent does not pay any rent in respect of the above accommodation. However it was urged by Mr. Allauddin Ansari that it was incumbent upon the respondent to have proved that P.W. Iqbal's mother-in-law bona finely required the premises and that the premises in possession of the respondent was not suitable for her requirement. It will suffice to observe that the question in issue before the learned Rent Controller was the personal bona fide requirement of the respondent and not the personal bona fide requirement of P.W. Iqbal's mother-in-law. The respondent in addition to her husband has four children. Furthermore, it is also not relevant whether the present accommodation in possession of the respondent has more accommodation as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant as compared to the tenement in question as admittedly the premises at present in occupation of the respondent is not owned by her. In my view the conclusion of the learned Rent Controller on the question a personal requirement is also based on sufficient evidence.
5. For the aforesaid reasons the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. However, I allow four months' time to the appellant on the condition that the appellant shall continue to deposit rent in terms of the Rent Controller's order failing which the respondent shall be at liberty to file execution application before the expiry of the above period of four months. Furthermore, in case the appellant fails to hand over the vacant possession on the expiry of the above period of four months, the learned Rent Controller shall issue a writ of ejectment without further notice to the appellant.
1985 CLC 236 [Karachi] Before Ajmal Mian, J MRs, NAUSHABA MASROOR and another--Appellants versus MRs, RASHEEDA KHATOON--Respondent First Rent Appeal No,444 of 1982, decided on 3rd March, 1985.
(a) Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)-- ---Ss. 13 & 15--Ejectment--Personal need--Finding of Rent Controller on question of personal requirement found to be correct and in consonance with evidence on record-Neither fact that tenant was not cross-examined nor factum that Rent Controller rejected other ground, held, would negate evidence of personal requirement if otherwise convincing--Order of ejectment upheld. [p.
237] A
(b) Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)-- ---Ss. 13 & 15--Ejectment--Personal need--Landlady's children having grown up since time of letting of disputed house and landlady living in a rented house--Landlady giving cogent reason for letting said house two years back--Said reason believed by Rent Controller--Ejectment order upheld in circumstances. [p. 237] B Ahmad Saeed Qureshi for Appellants. A.H. Alavi for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 3rd March, 1985.
' This appeal is directed against an order dated 10-3-1982 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller Court No,XII Karachi in Rent Case No,243 of 1979.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above appeal are that the respondent filed the above rent case for ejectment on two grounds namely, default and personal requirement. The above application was resisted by the present appellant. The learned Rent Controller on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed the following five issues:- "(1) Whether the premises No,65/3/9 Rifah-e-Aam Society Karachi was let out to the opponent No,1 and or opponent No, 2?
(2) What is the agreed monthly rent of the premises in question?
(3) Whether the opponents committed default in payment of monthly rent?
(4) Whether the applicant requires the premises for her own use and occupation?
(5) What should the order be?"
' The respondent filed her own affidavit in evidence and also the affidavit of her son Rashid Rafiq and one witness Ali Asghar; whereas the appellant filed her own affidavit in rebuttal. The learned Rent Controller after hearing the parties rejected the ground of default but allowed the rent application on the ground of personal requirement. The appellant being aggrieved by the above order has filed the present appeal.
3. (a) In support of the above appeal Mr. Ahmed Saeed Qureshi learned counsel for the appellant has urged as follows:-
(i) That since the appellant was not cross-examined by the respondents counsel, her statement remained unrequited, and
(ii) That the respondent has been disbelieved by the learned Rent Controller on the question of default and also as to the rate of rent and, therefore, this adversely reflected on the question of personal requirement.
(b) On the other hand Mr. A.H. Alavi learned counsel for the respondent has contended as follows:
(i) That the evidence on record is sufficient to sustain the ground of personal requirement though on account of sickness of the Advocate of the respondent the appellant was not cross-examined.
(ii) That the mere fact that the learned Rent Controller has disbelieved the ground of default or the respondent's version as to the rate of rent would not negate the evidence on personal requirement if otherwise sufficient.
4. I have gone through the evidence on record and find that respondent's husband left for Saudi Arabia some time in or about 1977. The respondent had let out the present house in 1977 for the reason that she was not well and her children were comparatively young and, therefore, she wanted to live close to her relations. After nearly two years she filed the present application for ejectment. I am satisfied that the finding of the learned Rent Controller on the question of personal requirement is correct and is in consonance with the evidence on record. Neither the fact that the appellant was not cross-examined nor the factum that the learned Rent Controller rejected the other ground would negate the evidence of personal requirement if otherwise, convincing. It cannot be denied that the respondent's children have grown up since then i.e, since the time of letting out of the house and that she is living in a rented house. She has given a cogent reason for letting out the house in 1977 which reason has been believed be the Rent Controller. I am inclined to concur with the finding of the learned Rent Controller on the above question. I, therefore, dismiss the above appeal and maintain the order under appeal.
' However, I allow six months time to the appellant from today on the condition that she will continue to deposit rent in terms of the Rent Controller's order, failing which the respondent shall be at liberty to file an execution application before the expiry of the above period of six months.
Furthermore, in case the appellant fails to hand over the vacant possession on the expiry of the above period of six months, the learned Rent Controller shall issue a writ of ejectment without any further notice to the appellant.