' This regular first appeal arises from the order of ejectment dated 21-6-1990 of the learned Rent Controller, Sialkot, whereby the appellant-tenant was ordered to vacate the house in dispute after availaing a grace period of two months.
2. The respondent sought the appellant's eviction on the ground that hitherto he had been living with one of his relations and that with a view to get rid of the tortuous living as a tenant, he purchased the present house so that he could keep his family comfortably in it. Additionally, he added that the appellant had damaged the house to the extent that its value had been decreased in the market.
3. The appellant-tenant denied the assertion of the respondent's personal need. He equally denied the allegation of causing damage to the house. The Rent Controller framed appropriate issues out of the pleadings and ultimately allowed the respondent's application. He noted with the particular emphasis that the respondent, who had been in Kuwait, was now back home after having been denied a job there, and that being the sole arbiter of his needs, he required it to accommodate his family therein.
4. In support of the appeal, learned counsel took me through the evidence in order to show that the respondent had been living in Kuwait with his family and that since his agreement with his employer in Kuwait had not been terminated, he would in all probability go back there with his children and that for this reason he. Was not much correct in stating that he needed the house genuinely for his personal use.
5. The contention was seriously opposed keeping in view the typical conditions prevailing now in Kuwait.
6. The Court has to take judicial notice of it as Pakistanis living there were evacuated at public expense to save them of the effects of war. Almost all of them lost jobs there practically with no hope to go back in immediate future. Although the evidence was recorded in the year 1986 when those conditions had not appeared, yet those cannot be ruled out of consideration altogether especially when the respondent has come back with his family for whom he may be needing some shelter in the country. The plea that the respondent could continue to live with his sister in the same large house had no force in the eye of law. The sister was accommodating in her house families of four/five brothers as well. To force them all to live under the same roof with their families was in fact too much to expect of them. The appellant had been living in this house for twenty years, having a number of children going to school/college. It was urged on his behalf that he would be faced with extreme difficulty if all of them were uprooted. The present litigation is going on between the parties since 1985. It should have been kept by the appellant in mind that he was being chased eversince for vacating the house. He had enough time to make alternative arrangements. Instead he took it easy to allow the time pass away without making any alternate arrangement for himself and his family. He has to blame himself. Lastly, there was no cavil with the proposition that the personal need is left entirely to the landlord's own choice. The two authorities cited in the impugned judgment had full application. Besides, this view was reiterated in Muhammad Siddique v.
Muhammad Shoaib 1986 SCMR 1207. Being a displaced person from Kuwait, the respondent had rather an unassailable ground for getting the house for his own family. The appeal has no substance and is dismissed. However, the appellant shall have the full term of four months as from today whereafter he shall be bound to deliver vacant possession of the house to the respondent.
The parties are left to bear their own costs.