1. ' The respondent filed application for ejectment on the ground of personal requirement, default in payment of rent, causing nuisance to the neighbourers and damaging the premises. It was pleaded that the property is owned by the respondent as the previous owner had gifted it to him.
2. The appellant is a tenant in respect of a shop No,2, Plot No,T-144, Block/Sheet CHV Qtr. Chanasar Goth Karachi at the rate of Rs,300 per month. It was further pleaded that the appellant has defaulted in payment of rent from February 1985. In the written statement the appellant had admitted relationship of landlord and tenant but denied that any default was committed and all other allegations made in the ejectment application were also denied. The learned Controller by the impugned order granted ejectment application on the ground of default and personal bona fide requirement of the respondent.
3. ' Miss Wajahat Niaz the learned counsel has contended that the rate of rent was Rs,100 per month and the same is being regularly deposited from February, 1985, in the Court of the Controller in Misc. Rent Case No,725/85. Mr. Abdul Wajid Wyne the learned counsel contended that rate of rent is Rs,300 per month and even on the admission of the appellant there is a default in payment of rent.
4. To support his contention the learned counsel has referred to para. 1 of the written statement and also the evidence of the respondent and three witnesses examined by him. So far as these witnesses are concerned two of them are respondent's brothers and the third Chun Muhammad is a neighbour. Their evidence does not satisfactorily establish that the rent was Rs,300 per month. On the other hand the appellant has also not produced any cogent evidence to show that he was paying rent at the rate of Rs,100 per month. In fact the learned Controller relied upon the admission made by the appellant in the written statement. Para. 1 of the ejectment application recited that the respondent is the owner and the landlord in respect of Shop No,2 on Plot No,T-144 of which the appellant is a tenant at the rate of Rs,300 per month. It was further alleged that the above premises was acquired by way of gift deed dated 7-2-1985. In his written statement the appellant has stated that para. 1 is admitted in the presence of gift deed without prejudice to his legal rights with the further submission that the alleged gift deed has been made fraudulently. Thereafter the entire paragraph deals with the legality and fraudulent nature of the gift. However in subsequent paragraphs it has specifically been pleaded that rate of rent is Rs,100. A perusal of the entire pleading will reveal that except a statement in para. 1 the appellant has all along denied that the rent was Rs,300 per month. The admission was inadvertent never intended to be made. From the evidence of the appellant and the written statement it seems that even with the previous landlord there was a dispute about the rent as he was claiming Rs,200 per month while according to the Agreement the appellant was to pay Rs,100 per month. However no evidence has been produced to prove all these facts. In the face of such cursory evidence in my view hardly any rate of rent has been established. Both the parties have not produced proper evidence to show that the rate of rent was either Rs,100 or A Rs,300 per month. Therefore in this state of evidence the appellant cannot be accused of any default unless it is specifically established that the rate of rent was Rs,300 per month.
5. ' The learned counsel for the appellant then contended that the respondent has failed to make out a case for personal bona fide requirement. In this regard according to Miss Wajahat Niaz the shop in dispute is completely different and independent property. This has never been the case of the appellant. In fact what she means to say is that the property is independent and is not required and further that there is sufficient accommodation for the respondent. The respondent has stated that he has two small rooms and there are three shops in front of the house which he wants to convert into a residential premises. He has further stated that he has to reconstruct and level the area to make it into a residential house. He had five children when ejectment application was filed and now today in Court he has stated that he has seven children and the eldest child is 13 years old son while the remaining children are daughters. In the application he has pleaded for the requirement of his two brothers who are living with him but they could not be included in the category of family members and their need has been rightly excluded from consideration by the learned Controller. Two small rooms in possession of the respondent are completely insufficient for his family which consists of himself, his wife and his children who now are seven. The children are growing in age and their need will have to be taken into consideration for purposes of determining personal bona fide requirement. Even two shops which have been vacated and are kept vacant will not constitute a proper accommodation and therefore in my view the respondent has made out a clear case for personal requirement. Miss Wajahat Niaz the learned counsel expressed her apprehension that the respondent shall rent out the shop to other parties on higher rent. If he does so he will be subjected to penalty under law. In view of these reasons the appeal is dismissed. The appellant shall vacate and hand over vacant possession of the disputed shop within a period of six months. Mr. Abdul Wajid Wyne has pointed out that the appellant is depositing rent at the rate of Rs,300 per month. By consent the respondent is allowed to withdraw rent at the rate of Rs,200 per month. The balance amount shall be refunded to the appellant.