' This appeal calls in question the order passed by the learned Eighteenth Rent Controller, Karachi dated 7-3-1984, ordering the appellant to hand over vacant possession of the premises in question to the respondent within four months from passing of the order.
2. An application under section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 had earlier been filed by the respondent, seeking the appellant's ejectment from the premises in question. The contention of the respondent in the application was that the appellant had committed wilful default in payment of rent. The premises, according to the respondent, were also required by him for his personal bona fide use.
3. The application was resisted by the appellant.
4. The learned Controller framed the issues as follows:
(1) Whether the opponent is a wilful defaulter?
(2) Whether the premises in question are required by the applicant for his personal bona fide use?
(3) What should the order be?
5. Both issues Nos.1 and 2 were decided in favour of the respondent and hence the appeal.
6. It may be pointed out at the very outset that learned counsel for the respondent stated before the Court that he did not intend to press the ejectment on the ground of default. Consequently, the only question that remains to be considered is whether the premises are required by the respondent for his personal bona fide need.
7. Only Mst. Aisha Ansari, who is the mother and duly constituted attorney of the respondent was examined as a witness in the case on behalf of the respondent as it has been stated at the bar that the respondent at present is residing out of Pakistan. She stated in the affidavit-in-evidence filed on behalf of the respondent that she was residing in a portion of bungalow situated in Sindhi Muslim Housing Society, Karachi owned by one Dr. A.M. Ansari and was paying rent of Rs.750 per month to him as a tenant. However, according to her, the landlord had been pressing her to vacate the said premises after the marriage of her son, Raffat Ansari. It is pertinent to point out that both the counsel stated at the bar that the applicant and some of his family members are at present residing abroad and are not in Pakistan. The applicant did not also appear before the learned Controller to give evidence in the case. During the cross-examination, the respondent's attorney further stated that two sons, one daughter and one daughter-in-law were residing with her in the rented house. The witness also produced a notice purportedly sent to the applicant by Dr.Ali Mohammad Ansari said to be the landlord of the premises where the respondent's attorney was said to be residing with her other family members.
8. The learned Controller found this evidence to be sufficient to establish the bona fides of the respondent and on the basis thereof he decided issue No.2 in the affirmative.
9. The expression "personal 'use" has been defined by section 2(g) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance to mean as "the use of the premises by the owner thereof or his wife (or husband), son or daughter". Similar intention appears to have been expressed in section 15(2)(vii) as the Controller has been empowered by the said section to make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the premises in case he is satisfied that the landlord requires the premises in good faith for his own occupation or use or for the occupation or use of his spouse or any of his children. It has been held in a number of cases decided by the superior Courts that persoanl need of the landlord cannot be restricted only to the occupation of the premises by the landlord himself and the said expression has been interpreted to extend also to such members of the landlord's family as may be dependent on him. See 1976 SCM R 52 and PLD 1984 Lah.
179.
10. The only evidence to be considered on the point is that of the respondent's attorney Mst. Aisha Ansari. So far as the affidavit-in-evidence filed by Mst. Aisha Ansari is concerned, it has been stated by her that the premises were required by the respondent for the use of his family which was residing in a portion of bungalow No.183-A, Sindhi Muslim Housing Society, Karachi owned by Dr. A.M. Ansari. In the cross-examination, it was further clarified by Mst. Aisha that the family members who were residing in the house consisted of two of her sons, one daughter and one daughter-in- law. As has been pointed out earlier, it was stated at the bar by the learned counsel for the respondent himself that the respondent was residing abroad and this further appears to have been made clear by the evidence of Mst. Aisha Ansari. Consequently, it is crystal clear that the premises in question are only required by the respondent for the use of his mother who is residing with her two other sons and one daughter and daughter-in-law in the rented premises owned by Dr. A.M. Ansari. However, notwithstanding the fact that the respondent is not in Pakistan, his personal need would include the need of his family members who are dependent upon him or are living with him, as has been pointed out earlier. The only other ground urged by Mr. Jatoi is that the entire ground floor of the building which the respondent is seeking to get vacated is much larger than the need of his family. However, this contention also carries little weight because it is for the landlord to determine his own needs. The same cannot be determined by the tenant nor the Rent Controller is required to determine the issue.
11. In the result, I find no force in this appeal and the same is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.