1. ' This First Rent Appeal is directed against the order, dated 27-3-1983 passed by the 10th Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi, whereby the Eviction Application filed by the respondent was allowed and the appellant was directed to hand over the vacant possession of the disputed premises to the respondent within two months thereof.
2. ' The facts leading to the filing of the above appeal are that the respondents is the owner and landlord of Flat No,2/D (Ist Floor) of building known as Al-Firdous Building on Plot No,82 situated in Garden East, Karachi, and the appellant is tenant in respect thereof at the monthly rental of Rs,500.
3. The respondent filed eviction application No,2070 of 1977 against the appellant on the ground of default and personal requirement. The respondent averred in his eviction application that the appellant is a habitual defaulter and very irregular in payment of rent and that he did not pay the rent for three months from Ist April, 1977 to 30th June 1977. The appellant filed written statement and stated therein that he had been paying rent regularly to the respondent and he had paid rent upto October, 1977. The appellant denied that he did not pay rent from April to June, 1977 or for any othei month to October, 1977. The appellant denied that the respondent needed the disputed premises.
4. ' The respondent examined himself besides his brother Moez All in support of the eviction application. The appellant examined himself besides two witnesses namely Bashir and Siraj Hasan.
5. ' The learned Rent Controller after taking into consideration the evidence adduced by the parties and taking into consideration the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, decided both issues in the affirmative vide order, dated 27-3-1983.
6. ' The appellant being aggrieved against the above order, dated 27-3-1983 of the Xth Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller has preferred this First Rent Appeal on the grounds disclosed in the memo of appeal.
7. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the parties Mr. M. Shabbir Ghori learned counsel for the appellant has taken the pleadings, evidence on record and impugned order.
8. ' The respondent in his affidavit-in-evidence reiterated the same facts. It is pertinent to note that the respondent was cross-examined at length but no suggestion was made to him that the rent for the month of April to October was paid to him. The only suggestion made to him in cross- examination was that a sum of Rs,4,000 was kept by the appellant as deposit at the beginning of the tenancy. This suggestion was admitted by the respondent in his cross-examination. Mr. Khuda Bakhsh Umrani, the learned counsel for the respondent has fairly conceded that a sum of Rs,4,000 was kept as deposit by the appellant. He also fairly conceded that he does not press the eviction application on this ground. In view of this position the order of learned Rent Controller on this issue is set aside. #TBS . #TBE ' The repondent in para. 5 of his eviction application stated that the respondent reasonably and bona fide required the disputed premises in good faith for his own occupation. It was averred in the application that "the applicant has been living in Flat No,B-3, Shah Ally Colony No,1, Silver Street, Garden East, Karachi, alongwith his father, brother and three sisters. The said flat consists of three bed-rooms and this accommodation is insufficient and inadequate. Besides, the applicant is scheduled to be married in the near future and for this purpose the applicant requires bona fide the demised premises for his own occupation". The appellant in his written statement denied that the respondent required the disputed premises reasonably and bona fide in good faith in his own occupation. The respondent in his affidavit-inevidence reiterated the same facts. The respondent admitted in cross-examination that the present premises in his occupation is owned by him and his brother Moez AU. The respondent also denied the suggestion that the premises in his occupation is sufficient for his requirements. It is pertinent to note that the respondent in his eviction application as well as in the affidavit-in-evidence averred that his brother Moez Ali was married and that Moez All owned a flat which he sold some time back. His brother Moez AU also filed affidavit-in-evidence and fully supported the respondent. It is an admitted position that Moez All divorced his wife.
9. ' As against the above evidence the appellant in his affidavit-inevidence stated that "the present accommodation of the applicant is much more sufficient to meet his genuine and lawful needs.
10. The applicant is not entitled to eject the opponent for the needs of such relatives who are, not covered under the relevant provisions of Law". The appellant further averred that the father of the respondent owns and occupies Flat No,6. It is an admitted position that Mst. Zarina, one of the sisters, owns a flat in the same locality. The appellant also examined one Siraj Hasan who stated in his affidavit that Moez Ali, the brother of the respondent, owns his own flat which was under occupation of tenants and later on the same remained vacant.
11. ' The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the learned Rent Controller has misread the evidence and the respondent has not proved his bona fide requirement. I have gone through the R and P of the lower Court with the assistance of the learned counsel. It is an admitted position that the present accommodation of the respondent consists of three bedrooms and the appellant and his witness Sira Hasan have admitted in cross-examination that the respondent's father, brother Moez Ali and three sisters are living with him. It is an admitted position that the premises in occupation of the respondent is not solel owned by him but belongs to the respondent and his brother Moez Ali. The learned Trial Court on the basis of this evidence came to the conclusion that the respondent required the premises in question good faith for his personal bona fide use. It seems that the finding of the learned Rent Controller on this point is in consonance with the evidence on record.
12. 'The learned counsel has not shown me any misreading of the evidence and has not pointed out any illegality committed by the learned Rent Controller.
13. ' For the above reasons I do not find any force in this Appeal No,377 of 1983 and the same is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs. I direct the appellant to vacate and hand over the premises in dispute within six months from the date of this judgment.