This First Appeal arises from the order, dated 13-1-1988 of the learned Rent Controller Cantonment, Lahore, whereby the respondent's application for ejectment brought against the appellant was allowed.
2. It was stated in the petition that the respondent initially occupied one of the two portions of the house in dispute while the other was occupied by one Riasat A.I , who vacated it in September, 1980, and that thereafter that portion also was rented by the respondent paying a total rent of Rs.100 per month for both the portions. He averred that the respondent failed to pay the rent from October, 1980; he damaged it involving the heavy amount of Rs. 7,000 for its repairs and he needed it for his personal use inasmuch as he had nine family members including a married son having four children. He added that he would shortly marry the other son aged 22, and that he needed the premises m dispute to accommodate them.
3. The petition was resisted by the appellant-tenant stating that it had not been brought with clean hands; was mala fide; was without any cause of action; was not competent in its present form inasmuch as it did not disclose accrual of cause of action; valuation of the petition for purposes of jurisdiction and court --fee. It was equally denied on merits if there was default or any damage caused to the premises or the petitioner needed it for personal use in order to accommodate his married or to be married sons. He maintained that rate of rent had all along been Rs. 60 per month.
Following issues were framed:-- (1)Whether the petitioner has no cause of action? O.P.R.
(2)Whether the application is competent in its present form? O.P.R.
(3)Whether the respondent is a defaulter in the payment of rent? O.P.P.
(4)Whether the respondent has damaged the property in dispute? O.P.P.
(5)What is the rate of rent? O.P.P.
(6)Whether the respondent has illegally made alterations in the disputed property? O.P.P.
(6-A) Whether the suit property is required for personal use and occupation in good faith? O.P.P.
(7)Relief.
4. The learned Rent Controller found that there was neither default in payment of rent, nor damage caused to the property. However, he found that the respondent-landlord needed the premises in good faith for his personal use as he had quite a large number of family members whom he could not easily accommodate in his present small house.
5. Mr. Siddique Butt for the appellant criticised the decision of the learned Rent Controller on the ground that he failed to discuss his evidence. He relied upon a number of authorities including Anwar A.I v. Muhammad Azam 1982 SCMR 1012(2), Salamat A.I v. Maqbool Ilahi and 3 others PLD 1982 Lah. 704 and. Messrs Delite House Ltd. v. Ch. Fayyaz Akbar 1986 CLC (Lah.) 495 to show that a Rent Controller being a Tribunal was supposed to discuss the entire evidence whether oral or documentary in order to satisfy himself/ objectively as to a particular conclusion. He emphasised that the impugned judgment did not satisfy this test in that there was no reference to the testimony of various witnesses examined by the appellant to rebut the so-called personal need of the respondent-landlord.
6. Issue No. 6-A relating to personal need of the respondent was found against the appellant- tenant. In para 8 of the petition he gave full detail of number of his family members who were living alongwith him in the accommodation presently occupied by him. The total number of members was nine including a married son having four children. The other son aged twenty-two was said to be marriageable. The accommodation in which they were all living was also shown in paras. 2 and 3 of the petition. It had only two rooms. These facts were not contradicted although a plea was taken that the house sufficed to accommodate as many people conveniently.
7. The learned Rent Controller was influenced by these two factors. The two-rooms accommodation was evidently inadequate for a family of nine persons A and would be all the more insufficient when the growth-up son is married. The detail of length and width of the two rooms as given in the application did not leave much behind to ponder as to adequacy of the house for such a large family. The oral evidence produced by the appellant was obviously of no assistance and that is why the learned Rent Controller pre-eminently felt that the house was needed by the respondent for personal use. In Sheikh Abdus Sattar v. Malik Muhammad Afzal and others PLD 1985 SC 148, it was laid down that a Rent Controller is not supposed to work as a meticulous judicial officer by adhering to various rules of procedure. Keeping this dictum m view, I do not find if the conclusion drawn against the appellant by the learned Rent Controller on the basis of the measurement of the rooms occupied by the respondent and the number of family members he has to cater for in providing them accommodation, was very wrong. Contrary to it, he applied his mind objectively to appreciate that the accommodation will be suitable for the respondent's family. It is likely to swell by the proposed marriage of his young son.
8. There is no substance in the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant. The-appeal is dismissed leaving the "lies to bear their own costs. The appellant shall deliver vacant possession of the premises to the respondent after two months from today. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.