1. ' The present appeal under section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 has been filed against the order passed on 16-10-1989 by the First Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller Karachi
(East) in Rent Case No,588 of 1987 whereby he dismissed the application filed by the appellant seeking ejectment of her tenant Syed Liaquatullah Hussaini on the ground that the premises were required by her for her personal bona fide use.
2. ' The appellant had claimed the ejectment of her tenant from the premises in question as she intended to live therein with one of her sons about to return to Pakistan from abroad. In order to seek the ejectment of her tenant she filed application under section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance on 18-7-1987.
3. ' The tenant resisted the ejectment application mainly on the ground that the premises were not required by the landlady for her personal bona fide use and had filed the ejectment application to enhance the rent. According to him initially the agreed rent was Rs,2,000 per month which was gradually increased to Rs,2,500 per month. He further pleaded that the first floor of the premises was let out to one Anwar shortly before this application for his ejectment was filed by her.
4. ' The Rent Controller formulated the following two points for determination:
(i) Whether the applicant requires the premises in question for her personal bona fide use?
(ii) What should the order be?
5. ' The appellant in her evidence stated that she is a widow and was residing with her daughter Noor khan for last twenty-four years while her sons are all living abroad. Her daughter Noor Jehan sold her house and she had to shill from that place and thereafter started living with her, another daughter Masooma. According to her,' her son Mahboob Alam was expected to return to Karachi and she intended to reside with him in her own house which is tenanted by the respondent.
6. According to her evidence she needed the premises since, 1982 when the original agreement of tenancy had expired. She was not able to produce any letter addressed to her by her son intimating her the date of his arrival in Pakistan and she also did not examine any of the two daughters to prove that she was not comfortable with any one of them and that she wanted to live independently. At present she is living in a house belonging to her daughter Masooma having five bedrooms. It is also an admitted position that she cannot live alone due to her advanced age.
7. ' The Rent Controller on the basis of evidence produced by the parties came to the conclusion that the appellant had not been able to prove her bona fide requirement of the premises in question and dismissed her application. The present appeal has been filed against that order.
8. ' Mr. S.A. Waheed Asim Advocate appearing for the appellant contended that the appellant has succeeded in proving that she required the premises in question for her bona fide use. Under the circumstances the Rent Controller ought to have on the basis of such evidence ordered the ejectment of her tenant. He relied on the cases reported in 1983 CLC 1523, 1983 CLC 2730 and PLD 1982 Kar.
9. 182.
10. ' Mr. Marghoob Ahmed appearing for the respondent in this appeal contended that burden of proving the bona fide requirement of the premises in question lay heavily on the appellant and she having failed to discharge the burden is not entitled to deprive the respondent of his valuable rights of tenancy. Admittedly the agreed rent of the premises and recorded in the agreement of tenancy executed on 12-2-1979 was Rs,2,000 per month and the respondent had also paid the appellant a sum of Rs,24,000 as an advance rent. The rent was increased by the appellant from time to time and by the time the ejectment application was. Filed the rent was increased to Rs,2,500 per month. The landlady in fact does not need the premises for her personal bona fide use but wants to raise the rent beyond a reasonable limit. In support of his such contention, he relied on cases reported in 1984 CLC 1061 and 1986 CLC 1100.
11. ' The main ground for ejectment of the respondent from the premises in question as stated in para. 2 of the application is that the appellant intended to live in it as one of her sons is due to return to Pakistan from abroad. There can be no objection to such claim to be the ground for obtaining possession of the premises under section 15(2)(vii) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 but the appellant is required to prove such assertion through cogent reliable evidence. In the present case the admitted position is that the appellant for the past twenty-four years was residing with one of her daughters and at present she is residing with her another daughter.
12. According to her case she will in fact be needing the premises in question when her son returns from abroad as she is an old lady and cannot live alone. Notice for ejectment on such ground was issued in the year 1987 when the date of arrival of her son was not known to her. Even on the date when she was examined before the Rent Controller a year later she could not give any expected date-of the arrival of her son. She was also not able to produce any letter written by her son informing her that he intended to return to Pakistan. She also did not examine any of the two daughters with whom she had taken abode. In view of the such material omissions in evidence the Rent Controller was justified in rejecting her application for ejectment of the respondent. No other ground has been urged by the Advocate for the Appellant and I find no merit in this appeal which is dismissed. 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.