' This appeal arose from the judgment of IInd Rent Controller, South Karachi, dated 14-9-1989, whereby ejectment application of respondent Mst. Roshan Sultana was allowed and appellant MA.
Qayyum was directed to vacate the premises in dispute and put the respondent No, 1 Mst. Roshan Sultan in its possession within two months of the judgment.
2. The brief facts relevant for the disposal of the appeal are that the respondent No,1 is the owner of Flat No,28, Jehangir House, Hussain D'Silva Gardens, Nishtar Road, Karachi and the appellant is her tenant, in respect of the above flat/premises at the monthly rent of Rs,550 per month. It is further the case of the respondent that the appellant tried to get the flat in question transferred in his name from the Administrator, Shehanshah Jehangir Cooperative Housing Society, Karachi, but failed to get the premises transferred in his name. According to her in the year 1978, the appellant shifted, therefrom and sublet this flat to respondent No,2, without her prior consent and intimation and the appellant shifted to the House No,40-Z, Block-6, P.E.C.H.S., Karachi. It is further the case of the respondent No,1, in her application, that she was not owning any house in Karachi other than the flat mentioned above and that she is living with her parents in Flat No,18, Prince Complex, Frere Town Quarters, Clifton and some times she stays in the other house owned by her mother-in-law at Plot No,5/46, New Karachi Cooperative Housing Society which is hardly sufficient to accommodate the family of her mother-in-law. Since 1978, the landlady/respondent had been requesting the appellant to vacate the abovesaid premises as the same were required by her for her bona fide personal use and occupation. The appellant was served with legal notice dated 28- 12-1987, calling upon him to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of flat in question to her, but he failed to do so, as such she filed application before the Rent Controller for ejectment of the appellant (tenant) on two grounds, namely subletting of the premises and bona fide personal requirement of the respondent.
3. The appellant had denied the allegation of subletting the premises and disputed the plea of the respondent No,1/landlady that the premises were required bona fide for the use of respondent No,1.
4. The learned Rent Controller framed two issues, namely: Whether the appellant had sublet the flat to the respondent No,2? And whether, the applicant required the flat for her own personal requirement?
5. The learned Rent Controller, after considering the evidence produced by both the parties had given his finding in the affirmative on both the issues and accordingly allowed the application of the respondent No,1 landlady for ejectment and directed the appellant to put her in vacant possession of the disputed flat within 60 days, from the date of judgment. Aggrieved by this judgment of the learned Rent Controller the appellant has filed this appeal.
6. I have heard Mr. Iftikhar Siddiqui, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Khalilur Rehman for respondent No,1/landlady. However, none appeared for respondent No,2. I have gone through the evidence recorded before the Rent Controller and also the judgment of the learned Rent Controller.
In my view the evidence with regard to subletting produced before the Rent Controller was not sufficient to prove that the appellant had sublet the flat in question. The Rent Controller had based his finding so far the subletting is concerned only on the basis of the fact that the notice issued to the respondent No,2 was received by one Mst. Maqsooda Begum who is reported to be the mother of Riaz Ahmed, respondent No,2.
7. So far the requirement of personal bona fide use is concerned the respondent No,1 landlady has stated in her affidavit that she has no residence in Karachi, other than the flat in question and that she resides some times in the house of her mother and some times in the house of her in-laws. On This contention the appellant has simply denied that the flat is not required by the landlady for her personal bona fide use. He has not produced any evidence to show that the respondent No,1 has any other house, which she can use for her personal bona fide use. On the contrary in his cross- examination he has admitted that he does not know if there is any other accommodation in the name of the respondent No,1. He has also stated clearly that he does not know if there is any residential property in the name of the husband of the respondent No,1 in Karachi. He has further admitted that the property in which the respondent No, 1 is residing in Clifton is in the name of Chaman Ara Begum. He has further stated that he has no knowledge that the applicant is residing some times in the house of her parents and some times in the house of her in-laws. In any case the contention of the respondent that she requires the A disputed flat for her bona fide personal requirement had gone unchallenged as no evidence has been led on behalf of the appellant, to disprove the assertion of the respondent No,1.
8. The appellant has now raised fresh contention that the disputed flat was gifted to the respondent and this has been done with mala fide purpose to get him ejected. It has been observed in 1986 SCM R 1873, that even if such gift could be regarded as fraudulent device as alleged by the appellant the Rent Controller being Tribunal of limited jurisdiction could not go into such question which could be decided by a Court of competent jurisdiction. It has always been held that if someone becomes owner of disputed house by virtue of purchase or gift deed, it does not make any difference. It is virtually admitted position that the respondent/landlady has to live some times with her parents and some times with her in-laws. It has also been held by various Couits that even in case where a wife was residing with her husband and had sufficient accommodation in her husband's house, yet she was free to live in her own house and can get it vacated for her own use if the same is in occupation of a tenant. In this connection a reference can be made to the case of MA. Rauf v. Mst. Mehmooda Begum, reported in 1985 SCM R 1960. It is well recognised that under the law of the land a wife can independently hold B property and there is no embargo in the law against her assertion of right to live in her own house.
9. It is clear from the above discussion that respondent/landlady needs the disputed house for her own use, therefore she must succeed in getting the said flat vacated. For the above reasons, no interference is called for with the impugned judgment of the Rent Controller. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. The appellant is directed to deliver the vacant possession of disputed house to respondent/landlady within two months of this order.