1. ' This appeal under section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance is directed against the order dated 4-7-1988, passed by the then Rent Controller (South), Karachi, whereby appellants were directed to vacate the premises, in question and hand over its vacant possession to respondents within 60 days from the date of said order. The facts relevant for decision of this appeal are as follows:--- ' The respondents herein had filed eviction application against appellants for their eviction from the residential premises, bearing Flat No,8 on the 4th Floor of the building on Plot No,SB-2/42 known as "TAYEBI BUILDING" situated at Mansfield/Syedna Burhanuddin Road, Saddar, Karachi, on the grounds of default in payment of rent, subletting, and bona fide personal use. The appellants resisted the claim of respondents and denied to have committed default and subletting. They also denied that respondents require the premises in question for their personal bona fide use. It is also the case of appellants that appellant No,1 had taken said premises on rent in the year 1969 and she had, at that time, paid an amount of Rs,50,000 as Pugree to respondent No,1.
2. ' The respondent No,1 filed his affidavit-in-evidence and was cross-examined. On behalf of appellants, Ali Muhammad who is the husband of appellant No,1 and father of appellant No,2, had filed his affidavit-in-evidence and was cross-examined. Learned Rent Controller had settled the following issues:---
(1) Whether the opponent No,1 has committed default in payment of rent since August, 1982 till the filing of this application?
(2) Whether the Opponent No,1 has sublet the premises in question to opponent No,2?
(3) Whether the applicants require the premises in question in good faith for their personal bona fide use as well as the use of the children of applicant No,1?
(4) What should the order be?
3. ' On assessm ent of evidence brought on record, learned Controller decided Issues Nos. 1/2 in negative and issue No,3 in the affirmative. Consequently, she allowed the ejectment application and directed appellants to vacate the premises in question, within 60 days from the order as mentioned earlier.
4. ' The findings of learned Rent Controller recorded on Issues Nos. 1 and 2 have not been challenged.
5. Learned counsel for the parties confined their arguments on the issue of personal bona fide requirement only.
6. ' It is contended on behalf of appellants that learned Rent Controller misread the entire evidence relating to the point on personal requirement, and, as such, reached wrong conclusion. Also, it has been submitted that learned Rent Controller ignored the fact that an amount of Rs, 50,000 was paid by appellants to respondents as Pugree at the time appellant No,1 was put into possession of said premises. Learned counsel for appellants also argued that son of respondent No, 1 was not examined for whom the premises was required and for this reason an adverse inference should have been drawn against respondents. In support of above contentions reliance is placed on the cases reported in (1) 1986 CLC 1751 Mst. Safia Hussain v. Ishrat Hussain, (2) 1986 CLC 696 Abdul Ghani v. Ismail Ibrabim Lakhani, (3) 1986 M LD 948 Mr. Raisuddin v. Mashiyatullah Khan, (4) 1990 CLC 904 Shahnaz Begum v. Akhlas Ahmed.
7. ' In Mst. Safia Hussain's case it was held that mere wish was not enough, but need should be specified in clear terms and evidence should be produced to show reasonableness of that need. In Abdul Ghani's case it was held that landlord was found to have other sufficient accommodation in his possession as such bona fide requirement, under the circumstances, was not proved. In Raisuddin's case it was held by a learned Single Judge of this Court that on account of bona fide requirement learned Controller would have to consider evidence on record objectively in order to find out if need of landlord was bona fide and in good faith. In Shahnaz Begum's case a learned Judge of this Court held that, if a tenant succeeds in proving that he had paid any amount by way of Pugree to the previous landlord the eviction should be conditional on payment of that amount.
8. ' As against above, learned counsel for respondents argued that personal bona fide requirement of respondents was proved by irrefutable evidence and the finding of Rent Controller on this point does not require any interference.
9. ' On the point of personal bona fide requirement the case of respondents, as disclosed in para. 6 of main application and in para. 8 of the affidavit-in-evidence of Nooruddin, is that the family of said respondent No,1 consists of his wife, four grown-up sons of whom two are married, and two unmarried daughters. His son Jawad is married and has three children. Second son Hatim is also married and has one child. His two sons Shabbir and Mustafa are unmarried and are aged about 25 and 22 years respectively. It is the case of respondents that they want to get them married.
10. A close scrutiny of the evidence brought on record reveals that the respondent No,1 requires the premises for his bona fide personal use. It is not disputed that the family of said respondent consists of his four grown up sons, two unmarried daughters, and his wife. It is also not disputed that two of his sons are already married and one of them has got three children, while the other one has one child. It is also not disputed that his two remaining sons are of marriageable age. The accommodation presently available to respondents is not definitely sufficient for decent living.
11. Already it is much less than required. The members of respondent No,1's family would further increase, when his two sons get married. Once the requirement is established it is not for the tenant to advise the landlord to live in the manner he suggests. It will be the choice of the landlord, which will prevail. The finding of Rent Controller on this point is perfectly correct and no exception can be taken to it.
12. ' As regards alleged payment of Rs,50,000 as Pugree by appellant No,1 to respondent No,1, it is noted that on this point appellant's witness All Muhammad, in cross-examination, stated that he has no receipt to show that the said amount was paid to respondent No,1. In fact, alleged payment is not proved. There is not provision in the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, relating to Pugree. In the case reported in 1987 SCM R 307 Shaikh Muhammad Yousuf v. District Judge, Rawalpindi it was held that Pugree is a 'mutual agreement' between the parties and would not debar the landlord from instituting eviction proceedings on the ground of bona fide personal need. Above principle was followed in the case reported in 1989 CLC 1138 Shahzada Sultana Humayun v. Mst. Zainab and it was held that, even if Pugree was paid by tenant, landlord would not be debarred from seeking ejectment of tenant on ground of personal requirement. Even if it be assumed that Pugree was paid as alleged, yet, in view of law laid down by Supreme Court in the case referred to above, the eviction of appellants cannot be made conditional, as it has no nexus with the plea of Pugree.
13. ' So far the plea that respondent No,1 has not examined his son for whose benefit the premises is required, is concerned, it is noted that' such non- examination by itself is not fatal. On this point reliance is placed on the case reported in PLD 1985 SC 38 Arshad Umar and another v. Begum Nazrul Askari. From the evidence of respondent No,1, the bona fide requirement has been fully established.
14. ' In consequence, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. Three months time from now, however, is granted to appellants for handing over vacant possession of the premises to respondents.