1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.--This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of a Judge of Sind High Court, dated 14-1-1985 dismissing petitioners' appeal and upholding the order of the Rent Controller directing their eviction from the demised premises. This order was passed by the Rent Controller on respondent's application that she bona fide requires the premises for her personal use and also desires to construct another roof on the property. She further asserted that petitioners were defaulters in payment of rent and had also unauthorisedly made additions and alterations to the premises.
2. After recording evidence of the parties, learned Rent Controller allowed respondent's application accepting the pleas that she requires the premises for her personal use and for the construction of the first floor on the property and that petitioners were defaulters in payment of rent for 8 months.
3. On appeal, learned Judge in the High Court upheld the order of eviction only on the ground that respondent had succeeded in proving that she bona fide requires the premises for her own use.
4. Mr. Rehanul Hassan Farooqui, learned counsel appearing in support of the petition submits that the High Court has failed to appreciate that respondent and her family members have acquired a foreign nationality and are permanently residing in Canada, and, therefore, their allegation that the demised premises are required by them for personal use is mala fide.
5. The Rent Controller rejected this plea for the reasons which may be reproduced hereunder: "It is an admitted position that the applicant resides with her husband abroad, but that cannot come in the way of her personal bona fide need for the premises. The husband of the applicant is admittedly employee of a foreign country as a national of Pakistan, therefore, the right of ownership of the premises of the application cannot be denied. She has children, coupled with the permanent abode of her parents in Pakistan, therefore, the applicant and her children must from the to the be visiting the parents and grant-parents. The applicant's status is to be measured and assessed in the light of the state of her husband, who is employee of foreign country, therefore, the applicant, when visiting her parents and staying for several months in Pakistan, shall naturally need a separate house. Therefore, in my opinion the personal need of the applicant is bona fide."In this behalf learned Judge in the High Court observed as under: "The main brunt of appellant's counsel's arguments is that persons who have permanently settled in Canada would not come to live in Pakistan and that the house, if vacated, will continue lying vacant. He submitted that the standard of living of the respondents must have become so high that they could not possibly live in P.I.B. Colony. I cannot agree with this submission because there are a number of people who decide to come back to Pakistan after having served their terms of office in foreign countries. After all it is a legitimate and natural desire of any person to revert back to his roots and if the respondent wants to do that she should not be prevented from pursuing that laudible object. Merely because her standard is high, I cannot take it as proved that she cannot stay in P.I. B. Colony.
6. For the present even the occasional visits of the respondent in Pakistan justify that she should be allowed to occupy the premises which she owns when she comes to Pakistan with her children and that she should not be made to remain a burden upon her relations for the purpose of residence for her temporary visits to Pakistan."
7. The fact that a person has permanently settled in Canada cannot deter him from coming back to Pakistan at least occasionally for the purpose of visiting his relations. And of course it is not denied in this case that the appellant has her relations in Pakistan and hence the desire of the appellant to come occasionally to Pakistan appears to be genuine. It is clearly brought in evidence by the respondent that she has been occasionally coming to Pakistan in spite of her long stay in Canada.
8. I am, therefore, of the view that in this case the requirement for personal occupation of the respondent, even though it be temporary and for occasional visits would be regarded as own occupation as long as the premises contained their furniture and belongings and are occupied by them from the to the and the same are not rented out to others."
9. We whole heartedly agree with these views, for, otherwise the provisions of the Ordinance would be rendered nugatory in cases where a landlord residing outside Pakistan bona fide requires his own house in Pakistan for his own occupation or use, or for the occupation or use of his spouse or any of his children when they come to visit Pakistan or return for permanent abode.
10. For these reasons, there is no merit in this petition and it is dismissed.
11. At this stage learned counsel for the petitioners requests that at least four months the may be granted to the petitioners to vacate the premises for they require the to seek an alternate residence.
12. Learned counsel for the respondent /caveator has no objection to the grant of the to the petitioners provided they undertake to hand over vacant possession of the house to respondent after four months without fail.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioners undertakes on behalf of his clients that they shall vacate and hand over vacant possession to the respondent without fail after four months.
14. In view of the undertaking given by the learned counsel for the petitioners, we allow the petitioners the for four months to vacate the premises, and direct that they shall hand over vacant possession of the house to the respondent after four months without fail.