' This is a first rent appeal filed by the appellant/tenant challenging the order, dated 23-7-1983 of the learned Rent Controller, Karachi allowing ejectment application No. 5183/81 filed by the respondent/ landlady on the ground of personal requirement and ordering the ejectment of the appellant from the premises in question. The ejectment case No. 5183/81 was filed on 25-11-1981.
According to the ejectment application, plot No. 248A Block-6, P.E.C.H.S. was acquired by the husband of the respondent/landlady and on this a house was constructed. According to the respondent the house was constructed for permanent residence of the respondent's husband, respondent and their family but while the house was under construction, the husband of the respondent, a government servant, was transferred to Rawalpindi and since he was never transferred back to Karachi, they could not live in the house. The house was gifted by the respondent's husband to the respondent. Admittedly the appellant has been a tenant of the house in question. In the ejectment application it was stated that the respondent's husband was attaining the age of the superannuation on 9-6-1982 when he was going to retire and that the respondent and her husband had decided to settle at Karachi as most of their relatives and friends were settled at Karachi and they required the house in question bona fide for their use and that the respondent and her husband who were at that time residing in a government quarter had to vacate the government accommodation and that neither the respondent nor her husband had any other accommodation available at Islamabad or at Karachi for accommodation on retirement of her husband and as such a prayer was made for ejectment of the appellant. Various allegations about the personal requirement and about the retirement of the respondent's husband were denied in the written statement. The respondent and her husband gave evidence and the appellant examined himself. No other witnesses were examined. By the impugned order, dated 23- 7-1983 the ejectment application was allowed, which order has been challenged in the present appeal. I have heard Mr. Inamul Haq, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Nasimuddin Shaikh, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. It was first argued by Mr. Inamul Haq, learned counsel for the appellant that an earlier case filed on the ground of default i.e. Rent Case No. 4999/78 was filed on 28-11-1978 by the respondent and that case was pending and the present case had been filed with mala fide intention. According to the respondent, her husband was going to retire from government service on 9-6-1982 and as such the ejectment case No. 5183/81 had been filed on 25-11-1981 i.e. a few months prior to the date of retirement. In the circumstances of this case, the mere fact of an earlier case having been filed in 1978 on the ground of default, does not prove or establish mala fides on the part of respondent in filing the ejectment application in November, 1981 on the ground of personal requirement.
3. Then it was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the evidence had not established that the respondent's husband was going to retire on 9-6-1982. I have not been impressed by this argument of learned counsel for the appellant. Respondent's husband had himself given evidence that he was going to retire on 9-6-1982 and a letter, dated 30-9-1981 of the Office of Accountant General of Pakistan Revenue Government of Pakistan addressed to the respondent's husband had also been produced in evidence, according to which letter the respondent was going to attain the age of superannuation on 9-6-1982. The husband of the respondent was cross-examined on 3-4-1982 i.e. two months before the date of his retirement. In his affidavit-in-evidence he had stated that he was going to retire on 9-6-1982. In answer to a question in cross-examination he had stated that he was still in government service. On this reply great reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the appellant. Husband of the respondent had earlier stated that he was retiring on 9-6-1982 and therefore, when he was asked in cross- examination on 3-4-1982, he had to reply that he was still in government service. On the point that he was going to retire on 9-6-1982, there is no cross-examination of the husband of respondent. No evidence in rebuttal has been produced by the appellant to contradict the evidence of the respondent's husband supported by a letter of the government that he was going to retire on 9-6- 1982, except that the appellant had stated that he rang up some body in the government and the reply was that the respondent's husband was not going to retire. This vague statement of the appellant does not wipe out the statement of the respondent's husband about his retirement. Then a reference was made by the learned counsel for the respondent to an application in April 1982 for urgent hearing and disposal of the case. Alongwith that application a copy of the Gazette of Pakistan of July, 1982 was filed in which a Notification, dated 14-6-1982 has been published by the Government, according to which on retirement from the government service after attaining the age of superannuation, the husband of the respondent relinquished the charge on 8-6-1983. In the circumstances I am of the view, that it was satisfactorily established that the husband of the respondent was going to retire in June, 1982.
' It was then argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that on evidence a case of bona fide requirement had not been established. According to the learned counsel, the respondent and her family had never resided in the house in question and they had permanently settled in Rawalpindi and their children were also studying in Lahore. I find no force in this contention also. It has been established on record that apart from the house in question, neither the respondent nor her husband owned any other property in Pakistan. It has been proved that while the house in question was under construction, the husband of the respondent had been transferred to Rawalpindi and was never transferred back to Karachi during his service in the government and as such the house had remained on rent throughout. A few months before the retirement of the husband of the respondent an ejectment application was filed on the ground of personal requirement. It has been stated in their evidence that all the friends and relatives of the respondent and her husband reside in Karachi, they have no other house anywhere in Pakistan and they have decided to settle in Karachi after the retirement of the husband of the respondent. The fact that the children of the respondent were staying in Lahore also does not demolish the case of the respondent. Her husband being posted at Rawalpindi, the fact that the sons of the respondent were studying at Lahore and staying in a hostel does not indicate that the respondent and her family had settled in Rawalpindi.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant had relied upon the following cases in support of his contention that no case for personal requirement in good faith had been made out by the respondent.
(i) Abdul Ghaffar v. Haji Salamatullah PLD 1961 Lah.
233.
(ii) Mullah Mahbub All v. Janab Ali PLD 1957 Dacca 544.
(iii) Abdul Rehman v. Mst. Aisha Bai 1983 CLC 2174.
(iv) Mst. Hajra Bai v. Mst. Aisha Bai 1982 CLC 1444.
5. The facts in the 4 cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant are clearly distinguishable. In the present case on the facts on record a case of personal requirement in good faith has been made out by the respondent. I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the learned Rent Controller.
6. First Rent Appeal No. 644/83 is dismissed with costs. The appellant is however, granted time till 28-2-1985 to vacate the premises, subject however, to payment of rent.