1. ' This First Rent Appeal is directed against the impugned order, dated 24-5-1982 of leered IXth Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Karachi, whereby application filed for eviction under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 on the grounds of default and personal need, has been dismissed.
2. ' Briefly stated the relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that appellant before me namely Muhammad Ashraf (hereinafter to be referred as landlord) filed an application for eviction on 11-12- 1977 against Mst. Musarat Nisar (hereinafter to be referred as tenant) and have four other minor children. Tenement in question is residential accommodation consisting of two rooms, which is half portion of accommodation on the ground floor of the house situated on Plot No,III/B/2/10, Nazimabad, Karachi, the rent of which without dispute is Rs,140 p.m. According to the landlord tenement in question was originally given on rent to late Nisar Ahmad on 1-9-1970 and a tenancy agreement was also executed between the parties. Nisar Ahmed agreed to vacate the tenement but subsequently he died and afterwards ejectment application was filed by the landlord against his widow and other minor children, who had become statutory tenants. It was urged in the application that the tenant did not pay rent and further that the premises were required by the landlord, who has a very large family of 12 members and lived in official accommodation of the Government which consists of only two rooms.Lt is further stated in the application filed before the learned Rent Controller that the landlord was serving in the Police as Inspector and wanted rented premises for his own use and use of his children, who were grown up and were school-going and college-going. Written statement was filed in which allegations of landlord were denied. The Rent Controller framed two issues, one with regard to default and the other for personal need. Plea was taken by the tenant that there was no default as landlord refused to accept rent by money order and further rent was deposited by her in the Court of Rent Controller after filing miscellaneous application. It was urged by the tenant that the landlord did not require accommodation in question for personal need for the reason that he had got some accommodation of three rooms vacated on the first floor of the same building which was not occupied by him or his children.
3. Landlord examined himself and the tenant examined herself. Learned Rent' Controller dismissed ejectment application on both grounds.
4. ' Learned counsel for the appellant before me made a statement that he would not press ejectment on the ground of default but would press ejectment only on the ground of personal need for which there was sufficient evidence on the record which was not properly assessed by the learned Rent Controller. On this point, landlord stated in the application for ejectment in the trial Court that his family consisted of 12 membeRs, He has described his family as himself, his wife, seven sons and three daughteRs, He stated in paragraph 5 of the application that he wanted accommodation in question in good faith for his own occupation and for occupation of his grown up children, who were school-going or college-goinit and some of them were in service. He wanted at least ten rooms as comfortable accommodation for his large family and status in life. He further stated that presently he occupied tenement consisting of two rooms allotted to him by the Government, which was not sufficient and further the marriages of his sons were held up for want of accommodation. As against this in the written statement allegation of personal requirement is denied in paragraph 4 and it is stated that applicant did not belong to such a high status and had applied for eviction with mala fide intention which showed that he wanted to harass the tenant so that the monthly rent may be increased. It was further stated in paragraph 3 that applicant had more than sufficient accommodation and accommodation was available on the first floor of the same building which as also lying vacant. Nothing more than what is stated above was averred in the written statement on the question of personal need. In the evidence landlord examined himself before the learned Rent Controller and reiterated the facts as stated above on the question of personal need and further elaborated that his one daughter was married while his other seven sons and two daughters were still residing with him. He produced admit cards and service letters of his children Exh.A/9. He further stated that his three sons were of marriageable age and his two sons were in service. The marraiges of his three sons could not take place due to lack of accommodation. He further stated in examination-in-chief that he resided in Government quarter in which there were only two rooms and the accommodation was not sufficient for his needs. Three questions of the cross-examination of the landlord relates to the question of default. On the question of personal need to one suggestion landlord replied that he never requested the Government to provide him a big accommodation. To another suggestion landlord replied that it was incorrect to say that accommodation in Saddar Police and three rooms in the building were sufficient of his need and requirement. To another question landlord replied that his three sons were college-going students while the other three sons were primary students and it was incorrect to say that he did not require the premises in the case for his own use in good faith. From this scanty cross-examination on the question of personal need and from asking a few stray suggestive questions it appears that no serious challenge was made to the claim of the landlord that he had a large family of 12 members and required accommodation in question for use of himself and his family members, whose marriages could not take place due to lack of sufficient accommodation. I have seen documents produced by landlord which have been exhibited. In the documents relevant for this issue on the question of personal need, he has produced his service certificate Exh.A/7, certificate of domicile Exh.A/8 with names and ages of his family members, two certificates from Board of Secondary Education and one certificate from the Board of Intermediate Education in favour of three sons Exh.A/9 and admit card in respect of his daughter Shamim Akhtar. He has also produced admit card of University of Karachi in respect of his son Muhammad Afsar Khan. He has produced a certificate from Grindlays Bank Limited showing that Muhammad Afsar Khan is permanent employee of that Bank. He has produced another certificate from Bina Enterprises showing that his son Muhammad Asghar Khan is permanent employee of that firm.
5. ' Mst. Musarat Nisar, tenant in her affidavit of evidence before the trial Court stated that landlord had sufficient accommodation on the first floor of the same building which was lying vacant and further had Government accommodation at Saddar Police Station which was also sufficient hence he did not need tenement in question and his intention was mala fide. This was a vague denial and no serious challenge was made to the claim of landlord. In the cross-examination the tenant said that late Nisar Ahmad told her that landlord had a big house. She could not say if there were only two rooms in the house of landlord. She admitted having met the family of the landlord. She stated that she did not remember the number of children of the landlord. She expressed ignorance if the goods of the daughter of landlord were lying in the upper portion. She further stated that the daughter of landlord was residing in the upper portion but that portion remained vacant for two years, She admitted that landlord has filed a case against the other tenant Aslam. She also admitted that landlord had filed case against another tenant Ashfaq. She further categorically admitted in unequivocal terms that landlord did not ask her to increase the rent. She stated that it was not in her knowledge that landlord required premises in the case for his own use. If evidence of landlord is read in conjunction with evidence of the tenant, it will clearly appear that landlord has produced sufficient evidence of convincing nature in support of claim that he has a large family and required accommodation in question for his personal need and the need of his grown up children. As against that tenant raised just formal and vague denied and could not make out a case that the need of the landlord was not bona fide but mala fide.
6. It was argued on behalf of tenant that the landlord was not entitled to the relief for the reason that he has suppressed facts in the eviction application and did not say that he had available with him a flat of three rooms on the first floor of the same building, .Hence second proviso to section 13(3) of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 will apply to disentitle the landlord from asking for ejectment on the ground of personal need. No doubt, perusal of application for ejectment shows that it is not specifically stated therein that accommodation on the first floor in the same building was available to the landlord. *Tenant for the first time stated so in the written statement in the following words:- "The applicant has already more than sufficient accommodation in the first floor of the same building which was/is lying vacant as well as in his possession/occupation to live therein."
7. ' Now there is sufficient space of time between filing of ejectment application and filing of written statement. Ejectment application was filed on 11-12-1977 and written statement was filed by the tenant on 27-3-1978. In any case, the landlord when examined before the trial Court stated in his examination-in-chief that he had got three rooms in the same building vacated from the tenant which he had not rented out. His daughter was residing in those three rooms and on the transfer of her husband from Pindi to Karachi, her daughter has vacated those three rooms but her articles were still lying in those rooms. Landlord further stated that his daughter did not want to vacate those rooms as her husband was about to get retirement. This statement of landlord was not further challenged in the cross-examination and no further question was put to him on this point.
8. No specific question was put to landlord in cross-examination as to when those three rooms on the first floor became vacant and whether before the filing of ejectment application or after. It was for the tenant to produce proof in support of the assertion that accommodation on the first floor in the same building was already available with landlord when he filed ejectment application on the ground of personal need.
9. ' It was argued on behalf of the tenant that during the pendency of this appeal two other flats in the same building (five rooms) had been got vacated by the landlord hence it was further submitted that landlord has accommodation of eight rooms in the same building plus two rooms in the Government accommodation, hence his need for ten rooms stands satisfied and he could apply for eviction at the time of his retirement. This argument is untenable and nobody can dictate to the landlord that he should apply for eviction at the time of his retirement as if the law does not allow him to live in his own house when he has good and valid reasons to do so. Counsel for the landlord before me has produced certified copy from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No, 52-K of 1984 between the same landlord and one other tenant namely Muhammad Ashraf in the same building on the question of personal need. Concurrent findings of the fact in favour of landlord by three Courts below was not interfered with by the Supreme Court and the appeal of the tenant was dismissed. From that judgment the relevant portion is reproduced as under:- "Landlord's evidence shows that he has ten children i.e, three daughters and seven sons, many of whom are grown-up, and that he being a Government servant is living in a Government quarter consisting of only two rooms. In regard to the flats on the first floor which have since been got vacated, his counsel submits that one flat has gone to his married daughter and the other to his married eldest son. He further submitted that the flat on the ground floor for which 'ligation is pending in the High Court is needed for his second married son and the present premises for his third son who is about 26 years of age and is shortly to be married."
10. For the facts and reasons stated above, I am of the considered opinion that landlord before the Rent Controller has produced enough evidence to show that he wants accommodation in question for his personal need and that need is bona fide, hence he was entitled to get ejectment on that ground. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order and grant eviction on the ground of personal need. Tenants are directed to hand over vacant possession within three months. In the result appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.