1. ' This appeal under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 is filed by the tenant appellant against the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller directing eviction from the premises occupied by him on the ground of personal and bona fide requirement of the respondent.
2. ' Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the evidence on record has not been properly appreciated by the Rent Controller inasmuch as he failed to take notice that the premises occupied by the respondent consisted of 4 rooms whereas the premises in occupation of the appellant consisted of only 3 bedrooms it is further contended that there are apparently serious contradictions in the evidence of the respondent when compared with the averments made by her in her eviction_ application, which show lack of bona fide in filing the application on her part. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length I am of the view that there is no substance in this appeal. The respondent instituted rent application on the ground of personal and bona fide requirement alleging that she is presently residing in a rented house which is not at all convenient.
3. She also alleged that her family consisted of 12 members while the rented premises in her occupation was not sufficient to meet her requirement. She repeated these allegations in her evidence before the Controller on oath. The fact that the respondent was residing in a rented house and that his family consisted of 12 members is sufficiently established on record. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the respondent in her application had given the number of her children as 6 grown up sons and 4 daughters whereas in her evidence she stated that she has 6 sons and 6 daughters. This according to the learned counsel amounted to an attempted improvement in the case at the trial. The contention of the learned counsel has not impressed me.
4. The application was instituted in the year 1978 while the evidence of the applicant/respondent was recorded in the year 1983. Besides the fact, that during this five years period which lapsed between filing of application and examination of the applicant/respondent in the Court, there was possibility of change in the number of the family members, the above contradiction pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant is of no significance as the appellant in his cross-examination admitted that the respondent's family consisted of 6 sons and 6 daughters. The fact that the respondent was residing in a rented house was also not in dispute as the appellant in his cross- examination admitted that the house occupied by the respondent is a rented house. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decision in the case of Fahmeeda Jehan Begum v.
5. Varindamal 1980 CI C 604 to contend that where a landlord is in occupation of another premises even though as a tenant he cannot succeed on the plea of personal and bona fide requirement unless he is able to prove that the rented premises in his occupation was not sufficient to meet his requirements. The following observations in the above case are relied by the learned counsel which appears at page 607 of the report:- "There is another important aspect of the case which although not taken into consideration by the Courts below cannot be ignored. Under section 13(3) (a) a landlord can obtain possession of the demised premises for his own occupation inter alia on the condition that he is not occupying another residential building suitable for his needs and has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause, It, therefore, follows that in case the landlord is shown to be in occupation of other premises even though as a tenant himself, he must show that such premises are not suitable for his needs. In the present case admittedly the appellant is in occupation of another residential building but no effort was made to show how those premises are unsuitable for her needs except the alleged ailment, which as discussed above, cannot be relied upon in absence of plea of that effect in the application and for want of sufficient medical evidence. The appellant has therefore, failed to fulfill the conditions prescribed by law for being entitled to be put in possession on the ground of personal use."
6. The requirement of law that the landlord should not be in occupation of another residential premises at the time of making of an application for ejectment of tenant on the ground of personal and bona fid requirement does not extend in my humble opinion to cover a rented premises occupied by the landlord. Reference in this connection ma be made to the following observations of Supreme Court in the case o Abdul Salam v. Najam Parvez 1976 SCMR 52 which appear at pag 54 of the report:- "The next contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that since the landlord was living in rented premises, he was in occupation of another residential building suitable for his needs in the same urban area, and therefore, he was not entitled to evict the petitioner. The requirement that the landlord should not be in occupation of another residential building suitable for his need at the time does not in our view, extend to cover rented premises, for, otherwise the result would be that no 'Landlord would be able to get his own premises vacated for his own occupation unless he can show that he is actually on the streets and has no place to live at all. It would be more reasonable to hold that the other residential accommodation which the landlord is occupying at the time, must be shown to be his own and not merely rented premises."
7. The decision in Abdul Salm Akhtar's case was referred with approval by a larger Bench of Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Aziz v. Ibrahim PLD 1978 SC 442. The argument in the present case by the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent is in occupation of a rented house which was suitable for her need, therefore, cannot be accepted as valid. The other submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that there was lack of bona fide on the part of the respondent in moving the application as she attempted to make improvement at the trial in her evidence. The evidence led by the applicant/respondent at the trial was fully consistent with the averment made in her application and nothing was brought on record to show any positive male fide on the part of the respondent in filing the application. Mere fact that there is some contradictions in her evidence is not enough to hold that application suffers from lack of bona fid unless it is established that such contradictions had the effect of totally upsetting the case of personal need pleaded by her. The version of the appellant that her family :members consisted of 12 out of which were sons and 6 were daughters, has been admitted by the respondent in his cross-examination and keeping in view the fact that present she is in occupation of a rented house the Rent Controller rightly granted ejectment on the ground of personal bona fide requirement. No case for interference is made out.
8. The appeal is dismissed. In view o the fact that the appellant is residing in the premises for the last 17 years and now-a-days it is difficult to obtain premises on such nominal rent I allow six months time to appellant to vacate the premises subject to the condition that he shall continue to deposit monthly rent in Court as directed by the Rent Controller. There will be no order as to costs.