1. ' This appeal is directed against the order dated 13-4-1989, passed by the IIIrd Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Karachi (South) in Rent case No,114/85 (Old R.C.No,2244/84) filed by the respondent under section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, whereby the appellant was directed to vacate the premises in question and hand over vacant possession thereof to the respondent within 60 days.
2. ' The respondent is one of the joint owners of Tajani Building Situated on Plot No,BR-13/14 Bunder Quarters, New Neham Road, Kharadar, Karachi, consisting of ground plus four floors. The ground floor comprises of shops and the other floors comprise of two rooms each except the third floor which has not been partitioned. The appellant is a tenant of the respondent in respect of the first floor of the said building, which is the subject-matter of the present appeal, at monthly rent of Rs,70 per month and also in respect of the third and fourth floor.
3. ' The respondent on or about 8-7-1984 filed an ejectment application under section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, for the eviction of the appellant from the premises consisting of the first floor on the ground of default in payment of rent from January 1984 to December 1984 and also on the ground of personal' requirement. The case was contested by the appellant, which was ultimately disposed of by the impugned order.
4. ' In so far as the default is concerned the learned Rent Controller has already held that no default in the payment of rent was committed by the appellant and against this finding no appeal has been filed by the respondent. As such the only issue to be considered in this appeal is as to whether the finding of the learned Rent. Controller on the question of personal requirement of the premises by the respondent needs to be interfered with.
5. ' Mr. Suleman Kassim, the learned counsel for the appellant, has challenged the impugned order on the ground that the respondent failed to establish that the premises in question was required in good faith for personal use.
6. ' The learned counsel submitted that where the landlord claims the premises for personal use the onus is entirely on him to establish his case before burden can shift on the tenant to rebut the landlord's claim and, therefore, if the landlord fails to discharge the burden, then weaknesses of the case of the tenant would not help him. He referred to the case of Noor Muhammad v. Khawaja Imran Ahmed (1988 CLC 1041). In that case the property involved was a commercial premises and in that context it was observed that:-- "From the facts narrated above it is explicitly clear that in the application the respondent did not disclose or make out a case with regard to the business sought to be carried on in the demised premises nor he specifically mentioned about the availability of requisite funds to set up any new business in the demised premises".
7. ' It was further observed that:-- "In my opinion it is incumbent upon the landlord to plead and prove all necessary facts to establish his bona fide need. It is also necessary for providing the tenant a fair and reasonable opportunity to meet the case for alleged personal requirement of the landlord. It is by now too well-established a proposition by authorities to be mentioned that the applicant (landlord) has to suceed on the strength of his own case rather than upon the weakness of the defence set up by the tenant. In certain cases, like the one in hand, it is imperative for a landlord to plead and prove the nature of business and the financial ability or resources to set up the same in order to satisfy the Controller and the appellate authority the genuineness and the personal bona fide need. I may caution that I should not be taken to hold it to be a condition sine qua non in all cases..... "
8. ' The learned counsel stated that here the respondent had made a mere vague reference in para 4 of her application about her requiring the premises in question for her personal use and that of her son and daughters without giving any details whereas it was incumbent upon her to plead and prove her case. That having not been done no weakness in the case of the respondent would be of any help to her.
9. ' The learned counsel further contended that the respondent had also failed to prove that the premises she already had in that building was not sufficient for her requirement. In this regard he submitted that admittedly the second floor and he ground floor of the same building was got vacated by the respondent and/or' her son through an application under section 14 of the said Ordinance, 1979. Placing reliance on the case of Major (Retd.) Jamshed Khudadad Irani v. Abdul Rahman (1987 CLC 1988) he stated that a portion of the building in question being already in possession of the respondent she, in order to succeed, had to establish that the said premises was not sufficient for her requirement and having failed to do that the Rent Controller erred in ordering the eviction of the appellant. The facts of the above-referred case were that the ground floor of the house comprising of three bedrooms, one drawing room, one dining room and some open space, was in the occupation of the landlord and his wife while the first floor had been rented out. The landlord sought eviction of the tenant apparently on the ground that he wanted his daughter and son-in-law to live with him. It was in these circumstances that the learned Court hold that the landlord failed to make out a case of insufficiency of his existing accommodation.
10. On the facts and evidence in this case I find myself unable to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that a case of personal requirement of the disputed premises had not been made out. The contention of the learned counsel that the respondent ought to have mentioned every detail about her requirement of the premises in the main application itself or that the respondent failed to give necessary details in the said application is not well-founded. It seems to me that for determining the bona fides of the landlord in cases of personal requirement of residential premises one has to look at the entire evidence and not merely the application.
11. ' In the present case the respondent in para. 4 of her application under section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, had stated that the respondent had two unmarried daughters and a son and they did not have any other accommodation of their own and they required the premises in question for their use. In his affidavit-in-evidence Aqil Tejani who is the son of the respondent clearly stated that the respondent and his two unmarried sisters reside with him in Flat No,3 of K.P.T. Officers Flat.
12. ' The witness further stated that he served in the K.P.T.As an Assistant Executive Engineer and had retired and as such he had to vacate the flat that was in his possession. He produced notice of his retirement from K.P.T. As Ex.A/4. He asserted that the premises was required by the family for personal occupation and denied that the property was intended to be disposed of. In his cross- examination the witness admitted having filed cases against the tenants under section 14 of the Ordinance as a result of which the tenants of the second floor and ground floor were evicted. With regard to the ground floor he explained that it was for commercial use. He admitted in his cross- examination that one of his sisters died during the proceedings. He stated that his old mother was bedridden and had lost her eyesight. He denied having demanded any increase in rent or that he wanted to give the premises on pugree. The appellant has alleged in the written statement that the respondent did not require the premises for personal use and the case had been instituted with ulterior motive to coerce the appellant to increase the rent. He has further alleged that respondent and her children wanted to sell the property after getting the same vacated as then they Would get higher price. In his affidavit in evidence it was for the first time alleged by the appellant that he had paid pugree of Rs,65,000 to the respondant/outgoing tenant for obtaining the premises in.
13. Question. In his cross-examination the appellant admitted that respondent's son Akeel was working in K.P.T. That he had been provided house by K.P.T. Where he was living with his mother. He however, was not aware if the said son had retired from K.P.T.
14. ' From the evidence that has come on record it seems that the present family of the respondent consists of three grown up members comprising of the respondent herself her son Akeel and a daughter, the other daughter having died during the proceedings, that the said son of the respondent was working in the K.P.T. As an Assistant. Executive Engineer and the K.P.T. Had provided him with a residential accommodation where the family was living, that he retired from the service of K.P.T. In December, 1985. Having retired from K.P.T's service it can safely be presumed, as contended by the respondent's son that he has to vacate the officers flat provided to him by the K.P.T. There is also no dispute that the ground floor of the building in question is commercial while the remaining four floors are residential, and that each of the residential floors, except the third has two rooms. Admittedly the tenants of the ground floor and the second floor were got evicted by the respondent and/or her said son Akeel through separate applications filed under the Ordinance.
15. However, it was explained by the said Akeel in his cross-examination that the ground floor was for commercial purposes. This being so the only residential accommodation that the respondent's family has in the said building is the second floor consisting of just two rooms.
16. ' It seems to me that even for a modest living a family of three persons in the relationship of mother, son and daughter would require separate bedrooms. The family would also need some sort of sitting room and possibly a dining room, depending, of course, on the status of the family.
17. Here considering the facts that the son of the respondent was working as an Assistant Executive Engineer in the K.P.T. Drawing a salary of over Rs,3,000, was provided with residential accommodation by his employer in their officers flats situated in the Queens Road Area and above all the family was the owner of the accommodation that it required, it will be unjustified to condemn them to live in bare two rooms and deny them even a reasonable living space.
18. Admittedly the premises in dispute has only two rooms and, therefore, this along with the two residential rooms that the respondent presently has the family will have of four rooms residential area. In the circumstances I am of the view that the respondent has been able to establish that she required the premises in good faith for her personal use and for the use of her son and her,daughter and therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the learned Rent Controller.
19. ' In the result the appeal is dismissed but with no order as to costs. The appellant shall vacate the premises in question within 30 days and hand over possession thereof to the respondent or her son or daughter and till then the appellant will continue to deposit the rent of the premises.