' This appeal under section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 19'79, is filed against the order dated 314-1989, passed by IIIrd Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller (Central), Karachi, by which he directed the eviction of the appellant from demised premises within a period of 60 days.
2. The appellant is the tenant of a residential flat bearing No,G-21, U.K. Square, Block No,16, Federal "B" Area, Karachi at a monthly rent of Rs,300 which was purchased by the respondent from its previous owner Dr. Shahnaz Mohsin. A notice dated 3-3-1988 about the changed of ownership was served upon the appellant who acknowledged the same. The respondent who has got a large family of, ten members had purchased this flat for her personal use. She, therefore, asked the appellant to vacate the same. The failure of the appellant to tender rent and to vacate the flat led the parties into this litigation.
3. The appellant resisted his eviction on various grounds. He claims to have tendered rent to respondent and on her refusal to accept the 'same deposited the arrears in the office of Rent Controller. According to him the disputed flat is not suitable for a family of ten members.
4. The parties went to trial on the following issues:-Whether (i) the applicant requires the flat for her personal use as (ii)alleged? Whether the opponent defaulted in payment of rent?
(iii) Whether the opponent did not pay the rent to the applicant upto passing of tentative rent order if so, to what extent?
(iv) What should be the order?
5. The respondent examined her husband and attorney Ch. Rashid Ahmed Advocate (P.W.1), While the appellant examined himself (D.W.1),
6. On the assessm ent of evidence, both oral as well as documentary, the learned Rent Controller decided all the issues against the appellant directing his ejectment from the disputed flat, hence the present appeal.
7. I have heard Mr. Malik M. Said, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Khalid Javed, learned counsel for the respondent. I have also gone through the record of this case carefully.
8. Para. No,2 of the application made under Section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, relates to the ground of personal requirement, which for the sake of convenience is reproduced below:- "That the applicant's family is comprising of 10 members (i,e. (1) Mother-in-law, husband, herself and 7 children ranging in ages between 2 to 13 years (2 sons and 5 daughters). The applicant alongwith her above family members are residing in a small rented house bearing No,1232/16, F.B.
Area, Karachi. The applicant has purchased the demised premises for her own personal use and for the use and occupations of herself and family."
9, The appellant has not denied both these averments made by the respondent in specific words.
He has, however, pleaded that the disputed flat is not sufficient to cater the needs of respondent.
The evidence which has come on record through Ch. Rashid Ahmad Advocate (P.W.1), however, makes it clear that,
(i) the respondent and her family members are residing in a small rented house bearing No,1232/16, Federal "B" Area, Karachi;
(ii) the respondent or any of her family members do not own any other house in Karachi except the disputed flat;
(iii) the covered area of the rented house which is presently in occupation of the respondent and her family members is about 500 sq. Feet, while the covered area of the disputed flat is about 783 sq. Feet;
(iv) the disputed flat is in occupation of the servants of appellant who is proprietor .Of Koh-e-Noor Hotel Karachi.
10. The superior type of evidence brought on record has not been dislodged by the appellant who has simply denied the bona fide need of the respondent. As observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Mst. Saira Bai v. Syed Anisur Rehman, reported in 1989 SCMR 1366 the only condition to be satisfied by a landlord is that he requires the premises in good faith, which in other words, means honestly. The following observations made in the case of Mst. Umme Khatoon v. Mst. Umme Salam, reported in PLD 1990 SC 755 are again relevant:- "If the landlord or landlady resides in a rented house or resides with his/her son who resides in a rented house and applies for eviction of the tenant from his/her own house, that would be in our opinion, enough to establish the good faith, unless other material facts showing mala fides are alleged and proved."
11. The facts I have set out above are based on convincing evidence. Even otherwise the respondent/landlady is the best judge of her needs. I cannot do A better than quoting the weighty observations of the Supreme Court made in the case of Bashir Ahmed v. Muhammad Shafi reported in 1989 SCMR 538, in the following words:- "Learned counsel then contended that the question of suitability has to be adjudged in the context of the status of the landlord. According to him, in this case, the landlord being a pensioner, would not require any more accommodation than he has and that four rooms are enough for him even if he has a large family. We do not agree with him. It is the judgment and the need of the landlord about which he is the best judge. Regarding status also, the primary consideration is choice about the need and comforts of the landlord. The Court can only interfere in this field when the claim of the landlord is visibly extraordinary. In this case, it is obvious that the status-wise and need-wise the landlord has not at all made an extravagant claim."
12. Mr. Malik M. Said, learned counsel for the appellant has contended with force that the mala fide conduct of the respondent is apparent from the fact that she had purchased the property worth Rs,1,50,000 for Rs,60,000 which the learned Rent Controller failed to take into consideration. Such circumstances alone would not detract from her right to have her own house for her own use and the use of other family members. The appellant has not questioned this transaction in reply to the notice and had on the other hand congratulated her for having purchased this flat. The written statement filed by him is also silent in this behalf. It may be added that due to ethnic disturbances the value of properties in certain areas had gone down. At any rate the appellant being the tenant cannot question this deal. No exception can, therefore, be taken to the finding of Rent Controller on issue No,1.
13. The issue of default in payment of rent was also decided against the appellant, and I think- rightly. Admittedly the notice under section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (Ex.0/1) was sent to the appellant in his personal name. The reply of this notice (Ex.0/2) is also on record in which the appellant has admitted tenancy in his own name. The written statement filed by the appellant again makes it clear that the appellant was the tenant of this flat. The rent in the office of Rent Controller was, however, deposited in the name of "Koh-e-Noor Hotel", which in my view cannot be taken to be a valid tender. The appellant was not in any uncertain state of mind and he had filed a Misc. Rent Case (Ex.0/7) against the previous landlady in his own name and not in the name C of `Koh-e-Noor Hotel'. Since there was no valid deposit of rent within the meanings of section 10 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, the finding of Rent Controller on the issue of default appears to be correct.
14. Having regard to the above factual and legal position, I see no substance in this appeal which is dismissed with no order as to costs. The appellant is, however, allowed two months' time to vacate the demised premises.