This appeal is directed against an order, dated 22-11-1981 passed by the learned VIIIth Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi, in Rent Case No.2469 of 1980 dismissing the appellant's application on the ground of personal requirement. The appellant being aggrieved by the above order has filed the present appeal. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above appeal are that the appellant filed the above rent case on the ground of personal requirement. The application was resisted by the present respondent and, inter alia, it was pleaded that the personal requirement was not bona fide. The learned Rent Controller on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed the following one issue: "Whether the premises in dispute is required by the applicant for his personal bona fide need and the need of his children?"
The appellant examined himself and his own father in law Sarwar Din son of Fazal Din, whereas respondent examined himself. The learned Rent Controller after hearing the parties dismissed the above application, therefore, the appellant has filed the present appeal.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and I find that the tenement in question which comprises of one room and is situated adjacent to the appellant's house, was let out by the appellant to the respondent about 20 or 22 years back. It is an admitted position that at the time of filing of the rent application the appellant's two sons were already married and the third son was about to be married as he was already engaged. According to the appellant he had two rooms in his occupation, whereas according to the respondent the appellant had three rooms. There is also controversy as to the time of marriage. According to the appellant's witness and father in law of the appellant's son Jamil the "Mangni" had taken place about 4-5 years back from the time when he was cross-examined and "Nikah" had taken place about 15 months prior to his cross- examination. On the basis of the above admission of the above witness and the copy of the "Nikahnama" dated 20-8-1979 Exh.7-A it has been contended by Mr. Mumtaz Illahi Shaikh learned counsel for the respondent that factually the appellant's third son was already married when the above rent application was filed on 23-4-1980.
On the other hand Mr. Zahiruddin Khan learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the "Mangni" had taken place and, thereafter "Nikah" was solemnized on 20-8-1979 but "Rukhsati" had not taken place. Be that as it may, the admitted position is that the appellant's third son was already married as per respondent's case at the time o filing of the above rent case. Even if I were to hold that the appellant was in possession of three rooms and not two rooms as was contended by him, the personal requirement has been proved as there will be all together four rooms even after obtaining the possession of the tenement in question which would be sufficient to accommodate the appellant, his wife in one room and each married son in one of the three rooms.
Am, therefore, of the view that the personal requirement has bee proved in the present case and the learned Rent Controller should have granted the Rent Application.
3. I would, therefore, allow the above appeal and set aside the order under appeal and grant the appellant's application for ejectment on the ground of personal requirement. However, there will be no order as to costs. However, I allow six months time to the respondent on the condition that he shall continue to deposit rent in terms of the Rent Controller's order, failing which the appellant shall be at liberty to file an execution application before the expiry of above period of six months.
Furthermore, in case the respondent fails to hand over the vacant possession on the expiry of above period of six months, the learned Relit Controller shall issue writ of ejectment without further notice to the respondent.