' This appeal is directed against the orders dated 8-6-1984 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Controller, Quetta whereby the eviction application filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants against the tenant (Muhammad Sharif) has been dismissed.
2. The eviction application by one Shah Muhammad, the predecessor in interest of the present appellants was hide on 8-6-1981 and the eviction of the tenant was claimed on the ground (I) that the tenant has raised Kutcha Pucca construction in the house which has impaired the value and utility of the house and (2) that the house is bona fide and reasonably required for the use and occupation of his son (Shah Farooq) who was married in November, 1980, and the house where the landlord along with his large family consisting of ten members is living is not sufficient as it consists of only three living rooms. The tenant denied the allegations. The following issues were framed: -
(1) Whether the respondent has raised construction of rooms in the leased premises. If so whether it has impaired the value and utility of the house in question?
(2) Whether the house in question is required by the applicants reasonably and in good faith for the use and occupation of his son?
(3) Relief?
3. The landlord produced witnesses and they are A. W. 1 Shah Farooq (son) for whose use the house was required. A. W. 2 Sardar Khan a Clerk of the Municipality. A. W. 3 Saif-ur-Rehman (a tenant of the landlord) and Shah Muhammad (the original landlord himself), and the evidence produced in rebuttal by the tenant consists of the statement of R. W. 1 Proran Masih R. W. 2 Attaullah and Muhammad Sharif (the tenant).
4. During the pendency of the eviction application the landlord died and the present appellants being his legal representatives were substituted for him and brought on record. The eviction application was dismissed on the consideration that: "Now the applicants are eight in numbers and mostly the applicants are ladies then how is possible that applicant Shah Farooq (son) shift from this house where the only sisters and mother are residing in the house." The learned Controller further observed that: "As the applicants have not established their case strongly I do not find applicants entitled for the relief claimed." The Issue No, 1 was answered by the learned Controller in this way that it was found that Kutcha Pucca construction had been raised but that does not impair the value and utility of the building/house and since it was raised four years before in 1977 and during this period no grievance was made by the landlord, he can be allowed to press this ground.
5. During the pendency of this appeal the tenant died and the present respondents being the legal representatives have been brought on record.
6. Mr. Ehsan-ul-Haq, Advocate the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has not pressed all the grounds raised by him in the memorandum of appeal and the only submission made by him was that the learned Controller has been led away by the extraneous considerations and the evidence on record, has not been considered in the right perspective and the observation is also based on facts which are not justified on record.
7. The entire evidence was read in the presence of the parties counsel. The following facts are established from the record (i) That the house in which the appellants are presently residing consists of ten persons. Besides the eight appellants, the widowed grand mother and one sister of the father of the present appellant are provided shelter. Apparently these ladies have no relations with whom they may put up. Such near relations cannot be thrown on road and deserve shelter in the old age.
(ii) The appellant is married and has a child also.
(iii) There is another male member in the family besides Shah Farooq
8. The ladies would have the protection and the company of a A male member in Shah Farid another son of the landlord and he can take care of the ladies. The sisters of the appellant Shah Farooq are grown up. They certainly deserve respectable separate room. The entire family is thus forced to live in those three rooms. The house in question belongs to the appellants, they are entitled to live in proper house keeping in view the age and status in life. In view of these facts the onus to prove that the house was required by the landlords in good faith for Shah Farooq's occupation is fairly discharged. The observation of the learned Controller is based on personal opinion resting on speculation and I have no hesitation in holding that considerations which prevailed with the Controller are extraneous and cannot be sustained.
' For the above reasons the appeal has to be allowed. I accordingly set aside the order dated 31-10- 1984 passed by the Senior Civil Judge/Controller, Quetta in Application No, 11 of 1981 and allow the eviction application and direct that the respondent shall vacate the house within four months. The parties shall bear their own Costs.
' The above are reasons for my short order passed on 18-8-1985.