' This first appeal filed by the landlord is directed against the order dated 15-12-1983 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Controller, Quetta whereby the eviction application filed against the respondent in respect of House No, 15-5/59-D situate on Moti Ram Road, Quetta has been dismissed.
2. Malik Din, the appellant had filed an application on 4-12-1978 in the Court of the Civil Judge 1st Class and Controller, Quetta and had alleged therein that the respondent, Manzoor All has been in the occupation of the House No, 5-5/59-D Moti Ram Road, Quetta and was paying Rs, 200 p.m. As rent, he is a bad paymaster and troublesome tenant and has not paid the rent for the last three months commencing from 1-7-1978 and ending by 31-10-1978 despite repeated demands and approaches. Besides it was averred in the eviction application that the house was required bona fide and in good faith for the use and occupation of his son. It was also alleged that the respondent owns a house in the same urban area, he is therefore, liable to vacate the house.
3. The respondent in his rejoinder to the eviction application denied the allegation of non-payment of rent and stated that previously the rent of the house was Rs, 150 p.m. But subsequently it has been enhanced to Rs, 200 and the rent for August, 1978 was tendered, the same was refused on the pretext that a fresh lease deed was necessary and the demand of increase in rent was put forward The respondent on each occasion when rent was due by lf .n tendered the rent but it was refused.
Consequently the rent was remedy through Money Order No, 0608 dated 22-11-1978 but this too was .Ikewise refused. As such the amount of rent was deposited in Con- and since then the rent has been regularly paid/tendered in Court. The 4uirement of landlord was repudiated and it was pointed out that the r.4uirement was not bona fide as the landlord/ applicant has not even mentioned the name of the son for whose use and occupation the house was required. It was asserted that the landlord alongwith his sons has been living in a very big house consisting of different portions. Some of the other houses in the same locality of Moti Ram Road, Quetta belonging to the landlord had fallen vacant but were leased out to persons (the names of the persons and the particulars of the houses have been furnished in paragraph 3 of the rejoinder).
The allegation that the respondent owned any house was also repudiated. It appears that this allegation was not pressed by the landlord before the Controller at the time when the issues were framed. The learned Controller on the basis of the pleadings framed the following issues :-
(1) Whether the application is liable to dismissal in view of preliminary objection 'C' of the W. S. Of the respondent ?
(2) Whether the respondent has failed to pay or tender the rent w,e,f, 1-8-1978 to 3-10-1978. If so to what effect ?
(3) Whether the applicant requires bona fide and reasonably the premises in question for the use and occupation of the son ?
(4) Relief ? .
' The appellant/landlord submitted a list of 3 witnesses and they were examined, later through an application made on 19-12-1979 the appellant prayed that his son, Rashiduzzaman be permitted to be summoned and the learned Controller allowed this application and permitted the additional evidence. Thus, in all four witnesses were produced by the appellant besides himself. The respondent produced R. W. 1 Tufail Ahmed, R. W. 2 Zahid Iqbal and appeared as his own witness.
4. The learned controller vide the impugned order decided the Issues Nos. 2 and 3 against the appellant and dismissed the eviction application. The learned Controller came to the positive findings of facts that the tenant had tendered rent but it was refused thereafter the rent was remitted through Money Order No, 0608 dated 27-11-1978 and this having been refused the rent was tendered in Court and this was done before the eviction application was filed in Court on 4-12- 1978 though the eviction application was dated 25-11-1978. About the issue of bona fide and reasonable requirement it was held by the Controller that all the witnesses of the appellant (landlord) have personal relations with Rashiduzzaman (son) and thus being interested persons, their statements are doubtful. The landlord has failed to establish his personal bona fide .
Requirement. This appeal has therefore been filed and the learned counsel for the appellant/landlord has complained that both the material issues have been wrongly decided by the Controller. Elaborating his submissions the counsel made an attempt to show that the controller has mainly relied on the statement of the tenant as contained in his written statement and there is no evidence according to him, that the rent was tendered to the Munshi of the landlord and was refused and there was no suggestion put to the landlord that the rent used to be collected by Munshi. I have thoroughly gone through the evidence in the case and found that the rent was admitted to have been sent by the tenant but the landlord says that it was sent when the eviction application was filed. This stand is on the face of it false. The application moved before the Controller for permission to deposit the rent in Court is based on the allegation that the rent had been refused and the money order was also not accepted, thus the tenant was constrained to deposit the rent on 29-11-1978. This deposit is certainly prior to the filing of the eviction application.
(The original challan placed on record is dated 29th November, 1978 and bears the seal of the Bank).
5. The term reasonable possesses an objective element and the word'. "require" would import something more than the mere desire and would call for a verdict from the Controller from objective standard. The question whether or not a premises is needed by the landlord for bona fide requirement is purely a question of fact which can be inferred from the circumstances which must be proved by the landlord by producing evidence. It is thus the duty of the Controller to see that premises are required both reasonably and bona fide and thus strike a balance between the arbitrary and unbridled desire of the landlord and the tenant at large. Bona fide must be proved in the ordinary way like any other fact and once the Court below finds as a fact that the landlord does not require thel building/premises bona fide there would be no justification for the appellate Court to interfere with such a finding.
6. Keeping these principles in view I find on the scrutiny of the evidence that the appellant has not been able to discharge his burden. It is noteworthy that all the witnesses produced by the landlord according to their own admissions are friendly with the son of the landlord namely Rashiduzzaman.
A. W. 1 Muhammad Iqbal is a resident of Railway Colony and is friendly with Rashiduzzaman he is unnatural witness besides his evidence is not direct. Even this witness admits that the house in which the appellant resides with his sons is a very big house. A. W. 2 Abdul Wakeel admits that he had very close relations with Rashiduzzaman but knows nothing about family problems. Similarly A.
W. 3 Muhammad Tufail concedes that the house in which the landlord has been putting up with his sons consists of eight rooms and two Baithaks. All these three witnesses have said in Court what was desired of them by Rashiduzzaman. The landlord's statement that does not stand the test of bona fide requirement. The landlord did not say that the accommodation is not sufficient for the need of the joint family. The learned Controller after consideration of the entire evidence produced on behalf of the appellant/landlord came to the conclusion that he has not established that he has a reasonable and bona fide requirement. I have carefully weighed the reasons which led the Controller to disbelieve the evidence produced on behalf of the landlord. There was undoubtedly evidence upon which the trial Court/Controller could reasonably come to this conclusion. I find no justification to come to a different conclusion from that which has been arrived at by Controller who had the advantage of having seen and heard the witnesses.
' For the above reasons the appeal is without force and is accordingly dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs.