' This appeal under section 24 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963, is filed against the order of the Additional Controller of Rent, Clifton Cantonment, Karachi, dated 18-11-1989, by which he directed the eviction of the appellant from the demised premises within a period of 45 days.
2. The facts are simple and may be briefly summed up. Respondent Vice-Admiral (Retd.) Iqbal F.
Quadir is the owner/landlord of residential premises bearing No, 5-A, Street 23, Phase V, Defence Housing Authority, Karachi. He was serving as an Ambassador of Pakistan to Mauritius, when his sister and attorney Dr. (Mrs.) F.A. Qureshi leased out the ground floor of this premises to the appellant for a period of 11 months commencing from 1-9-1984 to 31st July 1985, at a monthly rent of Rs,3,000. The tenancy was regulated by an agreement, which besides other terms and conditions provided as follows:-- "The lessor shall have the option of renewal of the lease on mutually agreed terms and conditions for such further period of time on which the parties hereto may mutually agree upon provided notice be given by either party at least 30 days before this lease expires. In case the lessor does not agree to extend the period of lease any further, the lessee hereby agrees to vacate the demised permises without any objection whatsoever, failing which the lessee shall pay to the lessor the rent at double the rate per month till the lessee continues to hold the possession of the premises in addition to the legal remedies available to the lessor.
3. The appellant, however, continued to occupy the said premises on the same terms and conditions. In the months of February/March 1986, Dr. (Mrs.) F.A. Qureshi visited the premises of the appellant and intimated his wife about the retirement of respondent and his proposed return to Karachi, somewhere in April 1986. Dr. (Mrs.) F.A. Qureshi also tried to deliver a written notice to the wife of appellant who refused to accept it, but promised to vacate the premises at an early date.
The' return of respondent to Karachi was, however, delayed, but he ultimately arrived on 10-8-1986.
In the meanwhile he got vacated the first floor of the building from Col. Nizamuddin where he is presently living alongwith his wife, three grown up children, namely, Miss Sameen Quadir aged about 25 years, Miss Nareen Quadir aged about 20 years and Mr. Amir Quadir aged about 15 years and an old family maid with about 23 years of service. It is the case of the respondent that he has got no other property and the present accommodation available with him is not sufficient to cater his needs. He, therefore, approached the appellant to vacate the ground floor of the premises for his own Occupation, but he kept him on false hopes. It is also alleged that the appellant did not pay rent for a period of four months from June 1987 to September 1987. On 29-11-1987 the respondent filed an application under section 17 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963, in the Court of Additional Controller of Rent, Clifton Cantonment, Karachi, seeking the ejectment of the appellant on the aforesaid grounds.
4. The appellant resisted his eviction on various grounds. He disputed the default in payment of rent. The bona fide requirement of the respondent to occupy the disputed premises was seriously questioned by the appellant who has alleged mala fides against him.
5. The parties went to trial on the following issues-
(i) What is the rate of rent?
(ii) Whether the opponent has committed default in payment of rent?
(iii) Whether the disputed premises is required by the applicant in good faith for his personal bona fide use?
(iv) Relief?
6. The respondent examined himself (P.W.1) and his wife Mrs. Shahida Quadir (P.W.2). As against this evidence the appellant examined himself (D.W-1) and his wife Mrs. Rashida Zafar (R.W.2).
7. On the assessm ent of evidence available on record, the learned Additional Controller of Rent decided issue No,1 in favour of the appellant, while the rest of the issues were decided against him.
It is in these circumstances that the present appeal has been filed.
8. I have heard Ch. Muhammad Sadique, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.Qazi Khalid Ali, learned counsel for the respondent. I have also gone through the record of this case carefully.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant was perhaps under a wrong impression that the eviction of appellant was ordered only on the basis of issue No3, viz. Requirement of premises for personal bona fide use, which is evident from para. 5 of memorandum of appeal; ' That the learned Additional Controller of Rent by the impugned order dated 18-11-1989, accepted the application of the respondent to the extent of personal requirement of the disputed premises by the respondent and directed the appellant to vacate the premises within 45 days from the date of impugned order. The ejectment order is illegal, against the law and facts and liable to be set aside on the following grounds:"
9-A. It was obviously due to this mistaken belief that the learned counsel for the appellant did not seriously assail the findings of Additional Controller of Rent on issue No,2, viz. The ground of default in payment of rent.
10. The respondent as his own witness (P.W.1) has testified about the circumstances leading to default committed by appellant from the month of June 1987 to September 1987. He has been supported fully by his wife Mrs. Shahida Quadir (P.W.2). Both of them have denied to have obtained a loan of Rs,12,000 from Mrs. Rashida Zafar (D.W-2) wife of the appellant, through a cheque (Ex.A/B), which was admittedly not presented for collection. The evidence of both these witnesses makes it clear that the appellant was in arrears of rent for a period of four months (June 1987 to September 1987) and this amount was tendered through cheque (Ex.A/B) dated 6-10-1987 by Mrs. Rashida Zafar (D.W.2) wife of appellant. The story of advancing a loan of Rs,12,000 was obviously coined to cover up the default of four months in payment of rent which had already occurred. When considered in juxtaposition to the following circumstances the plea of loan does not ring true and should be ruled out as tissue of lies not deserving any notice:-
(i) The respondent had a balance of Rs,180,872-28 at his credit. (Ex.A.W/1) when the loan of Rs,12,000 was allegedly obtained and that too from the wife of appellant.
(ii) The relations of the parties were strained during those days and according to the appellant himself the respondent had taken forcible possession of the telephone on 15-9-1987, a few days prior to obtaining of the alleged loan, which in these circumstances could not have been advanced.
(iii) The cheque (Ex.A/B) was not presented for collection and if the need of the respondent was so urgent that he would beg for a loan of Rs,12,000 from his tenant, he could not have kept it with him for no obvious reason.
(iv) The amount of alleged loan covered the rent of four months which was the period of default.
(v) The default of four months occurred due to the fact that the appellant was out of country, who when asked to produce his passport avoided it and did not produce although an opportunity was given to him.
(vi) The cheque was issued towards the arrears of rent which was obviously not collected to avoid any possible plea of waiver.
11. Once the tenant has committed default by not tendering rent within the stipulated/prescribed period he would be liable to ejectment irrespective of subsequent tender of rent in lump sum. No exception can therefore, be taken to the finding of Additional Controller of Rent on issue No,2.
12. The respondent retired as a very senior officer of Pakistan Navy. He was then appointed as Ambassador of Pakistan to Mauritius and was serving in that country when the disputed premises was leased out to appellant in the year 1984. In the year 1986 the respondent was made to retire from the assignment of foreign service and he had to come back to Pakistan. It is in these circumstances that he had to request the appellant to vacate the disputed premises to enable him to have a comfortable living with his family members, who are obviously used to a better standard of living. The evidence of respondent (P.W.1) and Mrs Shahida Quadir (P.W.2) proves that they are badly in need of ground floor or the building presently in occupation of appellant. There is nothing on record to even faintly suggest that the respondent owns some other building in Karachi City.
The three bedrooms apartment is certainly not suitable to the needs of respondent, his wife, three grown-up children and a maid-servant, The requirement of the respondent and his family members is challenged by the appellant mainly on the ground that they are also in possession of basement of the building which could be used for the family members of the respondent. The record shows that three rooms constructed in the basement (under the ground floor) are without bath rooms. Admittedly one of the three rooms is being used as servant quarter by the appellant while in the remaining two rooms the goods belonging to respondent are stored. Certainly this type of accommodation cannot be used by the family members of respondent who as indicated above, are used to a better living. In fact the basement accommodation was offered to appellant as a substitute for the disputed premises, but he rejected the offer point blank.
13. Vice-Admiral (Retd.) I.F. Quadir (P.W.1), and his wife Mrs. Shahida Quadir (P.W-2), I may observe, have impressed me from their conduct. Candid and straightforward they did not shrink from making, what might seem to be damaging admissions, and I felt no doubt of their entire truthfulness. As against this convincing evidence, the appellant (D.W-1) and his wife Mrs. Rashida Zafar (D.W.2) have afforded a disappointing contrast. They told a lie at the outset and stuck to it throughout repeating it over and over again without realising that any number of repetitions will not make a false story true.
14. So far as, I have been discussing the case untrammelled by any authorities, though there is abundant authority including that of the Supreme Court for the preposition that the suitability and sufficiency of accommodation is the prerogative of the landlord and the tenant has not been given power to determine where the landlord should presently reside. The cases reported as Mst.
Muhammad Nisa v. Anwar Ali (1989 CLC 157), Muhammad Ismail v. Muhammad Riazul Haq (1989 CLC 541), Karimuddin Shad v. Mst. Fatima Mian Ahmed (1989 CLC 545), Mst. Rehana Abrar v.
Inamuddin Malik (1989 CLC 616) and Tajammal Hussain Shah v. Mst. Taj Aslam (1989 CLC 662), may be cited with advantage.
15. Again a tenant cannot object if the landlord shows extravagance in' occupying big premises owned by him. The case of Messrs Tiger Wire Products C Ltd. v. S. Abrar Hussain reported in 1983 S.C.M.R. 402 is a leading judgment on this point.
16. On overall appraisement of the evidence available on record and on considering the surrounding circumstances, I am of the view that there could not be a more appropriate case for the ejectment of tenant on the ground of personal need than the one under consideration. The finding of Additional Controller of Rent on issue No,3 is also confirmed. The appeal has got no merits and is dismissed with costs. The appellant is, however, allowed two months' time to vacate the demised premises.