1. ' This appeal calls in question the order of ejectment passed by II Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller Karachi on 20-10-1982. The appellant is in possession of two rooms on first floor in house No, 2/214- D, P.E.C.H.S. Karachi owned by the respondent on monthly rent at the rate of Rs, 400 per month. The other two TOMBS on the same floor are in occupation of the Land Lady. Two rooms on the ground floor as clinic are stated to be in occupation of Dr. Siraj Ahmad the husband of the respondent and two rooms en the ground floor are stated to be in occupation of Shamim Siraj, a married son of appellant. The second floor is in occupation of another tenant.
2. ' The tenancy of the premises had started at Ks. 175 per month, in January, 1974. And in December, 1979 the agreement of lease was extended for eleven months and Rs, 400 was fixed as the rent.
3. ' The respondent applied on 8-2-1982 for ejectment of the applicant on the ground of personal need as she had three unmarried daughter of whom was M.Sc., another was B.Sc. And the third daughter was also student while there was unmarried son who was also a student.
4. ' The appellant denied the allegations of personal need in the Written 'Statement and alleged that husband of respondent was not qualified to practise as a Doctor and that, two grown up daughters were married and son was employed abroad and had gone out with his wife. It was alleged that the respondent had separate accommodation with her and that the husband of the respondent wanted to sell the building with vacant possession. He alleged to have paid Rs,10,000 to the respondent.
5. ' The only issue was of bona fide personal requirement of the premises. The respondent examined her husband/Attorney Doctor Siraj Ahmed and one witness Mashooq Ali who proved the allegation contained in the application. The absence of the son of respondent namely, Shamim Siraj from Pakistan was admitted by Doctor but he stated that he had gone out on 28-2-1980 after filing of the application. The supporting witness Mashooq Ali, however, admitted that Shamim Siraj had been abroad for some years but he asserted that the family of Shamim Siraj was in Pakistan and he had been married about a year back. The appellant in his affidavit confined himself to say that he supports the contents of the Written Statement and that the applicant has surplus accommodation. He admitted that he was Assistant Manager in Singer. Industries. He denied that he had not paid Rs, 10,000 to the appellant at the time of second contract. He admitted that second floor of the building was in occupation of Afzal Kayani. He denied that half of the ground floor Was in occupation of the applicant's married son and he denied that half portion on the ground floor was in the occupation of her husband for his clinic but he had to admit later on that the respondent's husband was running clinic in two rooms of the ground floor at the time of start of his tenancy. He denied that the three unmarried daughters were living with the applicant. He denied the knowledge if the applicant/respondent's unmarried son Wasim was also living with her but he asserted that the married son Shamim alongwith his wife was living in Saudi Arabia. He also denied that the applicant and her husband require further bed-rooms for them and he asserted that there are three bed-rooms with the applicant/respondent on ground floor and two bed-rooms on the first floor.
6. ' On this state of evidence Mr. Niazi A. Khalique contended that the personal need had not been proved. He has relied upon admission of Doctor Siraj that Shamim Siraj who lives on ground floor unit had gone to Dahran on 28-2-1982. Mr. Niazi A. Khalique has not been able to challenge the factum of three unmarried girls living with the respondent and one unmarried son who is a young man also living with the respondent. There is nothing to controvert on record the statement of Mashooq Ali that the wife of Shamim Siraj was living on the ground floor. But even if it was stipulated that she should join her husband in Saudi Arabia still some accommodation has to be kept for the elder married son ,and his wife for their return or at least visits and particularly for the furniture and other belongings. It is, therefore, apparent that at the maximum the respondent can utilize only one of the two rooms on the ground floor for the purposes of her children, which probably could accommodate the unmarried college going son Wasim. The first floor has only two rooms in occupation of the respondent and one of them has been converted into a -Drawing room and I do not consider that use as improper or in any way unjustified. This leaves only one bedroom for the respondent and her three daughters. A married couple moat have a separate bed-room for itself and therefore, the married daughters are left without a bed-room. In fact a M.Sc. Married daughter and B.Sc married daughter could reasonably claim a separate room for each one of them but in any case at least one room has to be assigned to them. The fact that the daughters are unmarried has to be accepted as correct as the statement to the other effect by Mr. John Dias is not satisfactory. In fact he has denied even the knowledge of these daughters living with the appellant or even the unmarried son living with the appellant. It is, therefore, apparent that he has not been quite straight-forward in his statement. The need of the husband of the appellant for having a Clinic and the two rooms on ground floor is established from the statement of the appellant himself who had admitted that Doctor Siraj was carrying on his Clinic at the time when the tenancy was created. There is no reason as to why the Clinic should have been discontinued.
7. The suggestion about acceptance of Rs,10,000 by the respondent from the appellant at the time of second agreement has not been proved. The suggestion that the respondent wants to sell the vacant bungalow after obtaining possession from the appellant is negatived by the fact that there is tenant on the top floor and thus the house would not b vacant even after the ejectment of the appellant and hence the bona fides of respondent's cannot be doubted on this ground.
8. I am, therefore, of the view that the order of the Rent Controller in granting ejectment was justified in the circumstances of the case and I, therefore, dismiss this appeal. However, with the consent of Doctor Siraj Ahmad, the attorney of the respondent who was present in Court on 2-2-1984, I have allowed six months time to the appellant to vacate the premises in question subject to the regular payment of rent directly to the landlady.
9. ' These are the reasons of the short order passed by me on 2-2-1984.
10. A p peal dismissed.