' This is an appeal against the order, dated 13-4-1983 passed by the learned Xth Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi in Rent Case No. 4967 of 1980 allowing the respondent's application for ejectment on the ground of personal requirement. The above application was resisted by the present appellant and inter alia it was pleaded that factually the respondent did not require the premises. The learned Rent Controller on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed the following two issues:-
(1) "Whether the applicant requires the premises in question in good faith for his personal bona fide use?
(2) What should the order be?"
' The respondent examined himself, Muhammad Ibrahim and one Muhammad in support of the application, whereas the appellant examined himself. The learned Rent Controller after hearing the parties allowed the above application. The appellant being aggrieved by the above order has filed the present appeal.
2. In support of the above appeal Mr. Muhammad Mustafa, learned counsel for the appellant has urged that according to the inspection note of the learned Rent Controller the respondent is factually in possession of 5 rooms in addition to the dining and drawing room. He has further submitted that the premises in dispute is in fact the mezanine floor .
' On the other hand Mr. Suleman Kassam, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that even according to the above inspection note of the learned Rent Controller there are three regular bedrooms on the second floor in occupation of the respondent and one store room. He has further submitted that factually there is no room on the roof of the second floor as it has no door and bathroom but factually it is the tower of the stairing case.
3. The respondent's testimony on the question that he has 11members in his family has not been shaken in his cross-examination. The break-up of the family is, the respondent, his wife, his married son, his wife and three children, two marriageable sons one of whom according to the learned counsel for the respondent has already got married during the pendency of the Rent Case, one schoolgoing daughter and an old mother. Even if I were to hold that the respondent is factually in possession of 4 rooms, the accommodation in their possession is not sufficient to lead a comfortable life. The bona fide of the respondent stands proved without any doubt.
4. It was then contended by Mr. -Muhammad Mustafa that the learned Rent Controller has not given the sizes of the rooms in occupation of the respondent nor the sizes of the rooms in possession of the appellant. According to him his client is in possession of two rooms in the mezzanine floor. In my view, it was not incumbent upon the learned Rent Controller to have taken measurements of the rooms at the time of the inspection of the site. It was open to the appellant to have produced evidence on this aspect.
5. I am, therefore, of the view the finding of the learned Rent Controller on the question of personal requirement is in consonance with the evidence on record as the additional two rooms in possession of the appellant will meet the personal requirement of the respondent.
6. I would, therefore, dismiss the above appeal with no order as to costs. However, I will allow 6 months time to the appellant on the condition that he shall continue to deposit rent in terms of the Rent Controller's Order, failing which respondent shall be at liberty to file an execution application before the expiry of the above period of six months. Furthermore, in case he fails to hand over the vacant possession of the tenement on the expiry of six months the learned Rent Controller shall issue a writ of ejectment without further notice.