S.A. NUSRAT, J.--This appeal, by leave of this Court, is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Baluchistan passed in a rent case and has arisen in the background of the following facts:-
1. The appellant is the landlord of bungalow where the respondent has been a tenant in a portion thereof ever-since 1973 on a monthly rent of Rs.300 (hereinafter referred to as the disputed premises). The other portion of the bungalow has admittedly been in his occupation. The appellant made application for ejectment of the respondent from the disputed premises under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 on 11th May, 1982 on the ground that the same were required by him in good faith for his own occupation and for the occupation of his children. According to the appellant, the respondent was occupying "full bungalow except the two servant rooms" in his occupation. His family allegedly comprised of his wife, four sons and wife and daughter of his son Kazim. It was further averred that the rooms in occupation of the appellant were not suitable for his need and that of his family. The appellant, alongwith the application, also filed a plan of the bungalow. The application was resisted by the respondent and the allegation of bona fide requirement of the appellant was specifically denied. The correctness of the building plan attached with the application was also disputed. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Rent Controller framed as many as seven issues. However, the issues which are relevant, being Nos.4, 5, 6 and 7, are reproduced hereunder:-
(4) Whether the applicant and his family is in occupation of servant portion of the bungalow?
(5) What is the detail of the accommodation in occupation of the applicant and respondent respectively?
(6) Whether the accommodation in occupation of the applicant is not suitable for the need of the applicant end his family.
(7) Whether the applicant requires the premises in question in I,i~,------y,p good faith for his personal use and occupation?
2. The appellant examined four witnesses, besides himself, in support of his case and likewise the respondent also examined himself and four other witnesses in defence. Issues Nos.4, 6 and 7 were decided in favour of the appellant and upon such finding the ejectment application was allowed by the learned Rent Controller as per his order dated 31-5-1983. This order was challenged in appeal by the respondent which was allowed as per impugned judgment by the learned High Court.
3. Leave to appeal was granted to examine the contention whether considering the number of the members of the family of the appellant, the learned Judge in the High Court had erred in failing to give effect to the entitlement of the appellant under the law to evict his tenant.
4. We heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned judgment and the evidence brought on the record. It appears that no finding was recorded by the learned Rent Controller on issue No. 5, particularly with regard to the detail of accommodation in occupation of the appellant, which factor alone was relevant for the decision of the case. The learned High Court, therefore, found it necessary to appoint a local Commissioner for the purpose of inspection of the bungalow and give his report. A reference to the record of the High Court shows that the local Commissioner was appointed by consent of the learned counsel for the parties. The local Commissioner was also examined on oath on 7-4-1984 and was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the appellant.
5. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appointment of a local Commissioner was beyond the scope of amended subsection(4)of section 15 of the Ordinance, as applicable to the Province of Baluchistan, because inquiry, if any at the Appellate stage, had to be made either by the learned High Court itself or should have been made through the learned Rent Controller. In this view of the matter, according to the learned counsel, the report of the local Commissioner was not liable to be considered. The contention is without any substance because inquiries through local Commissioners is one of the accepted modes of inquiry and it was not necessary that the learned Judge in the High Court should have himself inspected the premises.
Besides, the local Commissioner was appointed by the consent of the learned counsel for the parties and he was also cross---examined on behalf of the appellant. As such it cannot be said that the report of the local Commissioner was accepted without giving any opportunity of rebuttal to the appellant.
6. The main contention of the learned counsel, however, was that the appellant was residing in, what was termed by him, as the outhouse of the bungalow whereas the respondent was living in the main bungalow and looking to the number of his family members, the appellant had satisfactorily proved his bona fide requirement. This question is one of fact and the decision of the learned High Court is based on evidence duly supported by the report of the Local Commissioner.
The allegation made in the application that the appellant was in occupation of only two rooms, was found to be incorrect by the learned High Court. What were termed by the appellant as two rooms, were in fact three rooms besides several other rooms in possession of the appellant as shown in the plan. It was also found that according to the evidence, besides the appellant his wife, four sons and one daughter, the parents of the appellant were also living in the same portion of the house since long. The parents of the appellant had expired, his daughter had been married and one son (Hashim) was serving at Karachi and living there. According to the High Court, therefore, the number of the members of the appellant's family comprised of the appellant, his three sons, the wife of his son Kazim and two minor children alone. The case in hand was not where the appellant may not have been living in any accommodation of his own. Since the appellant was occupying another residential premises of his own, it was necessary for him to show that the said accommodation was not suitable for his needs. This question was examined by the learned High Court and the finding recorded in this behalf reads as under:- "The upshot of the above discussion is that the applicant/ landlord has failed to establish that the premises in question is required by him in good faith and that the residential building in his occupation is not suitable for his personal needs."
The judgment of the learned High Court is well-discussed and each and every aspect of the case on the relevant issues has been duly examined. In the circumstances, the findings of the learned High Court are unexceptionable. The appeal, therefore, is without any merits and is dismissed.
There will be, however, no order as to costs.