1. ' This First Rent Appeal is directed against the order dated 19-5-1986 passed by the IV Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Karachi, whereby- the eviction application was allowed and the appellant was directed to hand over vacant possession of the premises in dispute to the respondent within sixty days from the date of the order.
2. ' The facts leading to the filing of the above appeal are that the respondents are the owners and landlords of the house constructed on a plot No,18, Row No,9, Sub-Block "E" Block II, admeasuring 220 square yards situated at Nazimabad No,2, Karachi, and the appellant is a tenant in respect of a portion of ground floor at the monthly rent of Rs,200. The respondents filed eviction application bearing No,40 of 1985 on the ground of personal requirement. The appellant resisted the eviction application. The respondent No,1 filed her own affidavit-in-evidence in support of the eviction application. The appellant filed his own affidavit-in-evidence in rebuttal. They were cross- examined by the learned counsel for the respective parties.
3. ' The learned 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 allowed the eviction application vide order dated 19-5-1986.
4. ' The appellant being aggrieved against the order dated 19-5-1986 of the IV Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Karachi, has preferred this First Rent Appeal on the grounds mentioned in the Memo of Appeal.
5. ' Mr.Khalid Athar the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the learned Controller has mis-read the evidence.
6. ' On the other hand Mr.Hafiz Abdul Baqi the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the order is in accord with the evidence.
7. ' It is an admitted position that the ground floor of the above building consists of two portions. One of the portions was let out to Nadir Hussain Shah and the other portion was let out to the appellant in the year 1970. The portion in possession of the appellant consists of two rooms, Kitchen with other amenities. It is an admitted position that the family of respondent consists of more than ten members. It is also an admitted position that respondent resides with her brother. I have gone through the evidence recorded in this case and find that the personal requirement was pressed for accommodating herself and her children. I have not been able to discover any mis-reading in the evidence. In the present case, there was evidence of respondent that she is residing with her brother. According to her there are more than 10 members with her in a premises which does not belong to her.
8. ' In view of the evidence on record and the aspects considered above, I feel that the need of the respondents is bona fide and is in good faith.
9. ' Considering the facts on record, I would dismiss the appeal and affirm the order of the learned Controller. The appellant is allowed to hand over vacant possession of the premises in question within a period of four months from 4-12-1986. There will be no order as to costs.
10. ' The above are the reasons for the short order dated 4-12-1986 which was passed on conclusion of the arguments.