ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.--The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment, dated 12-3-1990 of the High Court of Sindh.
2. The facts, in brief, arc that respondent brought an application for the eviction of the petitioner from the premises in question on the ground of default in payment of rent for the months of October and November, 1984 and March and April 1985 and for her own personal bona ride use, and for the use and occupation of her two sons and three daughters. The application was contested by the petitioner. It .Was stated that Syed Waris Imam, the husband of the respondent, had inducted him in the demised premises as a tenant. He had been receiving the rent and issuing rent receipt. The alleged default was denied and it was stated that the entire rent had been deposited in advance in the Court of the Rent Controller. The bona ride need of the respondent was also challenged. The pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following issues:--
(1) Whether the applicant is owner of the suit premises?
(2) Whether the opponent is a wilful defaulter?
(3) Whether the applicant needs the suit premises for her personal bona ride use?
(4) What should the order be?
3. The learned Rent Controller decided all the issues in favour of the respondent. The petitioner being aggrieved, riled .An appeal in the High Court against the decision of the Controller. The learned High Court set aside the findings of the Rent Controller on issue No.2. It was adjudged that the petitioner was not a defaulter. The other issues were decided against the petitioner and the findings of the Rent Controller on these two issues were affirmed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has advanced the same arguments in this Court which he had canvassed before the learned High Court. The High Court after assessing the evidence on record repelled the contention of the petitioner.
5. The learned counsel submitted that the house in dispute was let out to the petitioner by Syed Waris Imam, the husband of the respondent who was receiving the rent from the petitioner, therefore, the relationship of landlord and tenant has not been established. This contention has no merit. The agreement of lease was executed on 28-10-1974 between the petitioner and the respondent. The petitioner had signed the agreement. Syed Waris Imam, the husband of the respondent, was dealing with the matter on behalf of his wife. It cannot, therefore, be said that she was not the landlady/owner of the petitioner. Syed Waris Imam, the husband and attorney of the respondent, has clearly stated that the respondent is the owner of the house in question and the petitioner is her tenant. The house is in the name of the respondent. Syed Waris Imam further stated that the petitioner had settled the terms of tenancy with the respondent. The record also indicates that the respondent is the owner of the house in question. The finding of the two Courts on the assessm ent of the evidence that the respondent is the owner of the premises in dispute is not open to challenge. There is no misreading of evidence.
6. It was next contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent has failed to prove that the premise's in question is required for her bona fide personal use. He submitted that the husband of t1w landlady owns two houses and after those houses had been vacated by the tenants, the same were let out to other tenants. This argument has no force. The respondent is the owner of the house in question and she is entitled to gel tile same vacated for her own use and occupation.
7. The next argument of the learned counsel is that the respondent is already living in the house.
The case of the respondent is that she is living with her family in a rented house and the accommodation is not sufficient for their use. The house in question has more accommodation than the one in the occupation of the petitioner. This statement of fact has not been disputed.
There is no evidence to rebut the plea of the respondent on this score. Additionally, she is living in a rented house and the accommodation is not a relevant fact in an eviction application and she is entitled to live in her own house. This contention has also no force.
8. The learned counsel next contended that the daughters of the respondent have been. Married and at present, the family of the respondent consists of only four members. This contention was considered by the learned High Court and was rejected. It is the case of the respondent that her three daughters are still living with her. The respondent has been able to prove the bona fide requirement of the house in question. There are concurrent findings of fact by the two Courts. There is no error of law which needs examination by this Court.
9. This petition has no force. The same is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.