1. ' MUKHTAR AHMED JUNEJO, J.---Appellant Mst. Sara Bai has challenged dismissal of her Rent Case No, 4028/84 ordered by VIIIth Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi, (South), under the impugned judgment dated 13-5-1991.
2. ' Admittedly respondent No,1, Godhra Muslim Association is in possession of the room in litigation bearing No,2 at the ground floor of Usman Khan Manzil 67/1, Jiwan Street, Ramswami, Karachi on monthly rent of Rs,15.
3. ' The appellant filed Rent Case No, 4028/1984 for eviction of respondent No,1 from the room in litigation on the ground of default in payment of rent for January 1980 to November 1984 and for bona fide personal use.
4. ' In his written statement, the respondent No,1 while admitting his being tenant in the disputed room spoke of a notice received by him from Hakim Jamil Ahmad Siddiqui (subsequently joined as respondent No, 2) and Shakeel Ahmed Siddiqui to the effect that they had become co-owners of the disputed premises to the extent of 50% share, which they purchased from Kayan Khan.
5. Respondent No,1 claimed to be depositing the rent in Misc. Rent Case No,1512/80 in names of the appellant and the co-owners who had sent to him a notice in view of dispute about title of the property. Respondent No,1 denied being defaulter in payment of rent and controverted claim of the appellant for the shop in dispute being required for her personal use.
6. ' In his written statement respondent No, 2, who was joined on his own application as party on 2-10- 1985, challenged the rent application to be not maintainable, misconceived, mala fide, mischievous and highly belated. He alleged that the appellant had deliberately and intentionally concealed and suppressed true facts to mislead and misguide the trial Court. Respondent No,2 claimed that he and his son Shakeel Ahmed were co-owners of the suit property to the extent of 50 paisa share. He admitted that other half of the property belonged to the appellant. Right of the appellant to file the application for ejectment of respondent No,1 was challenged. In this way respondent No,2 opposed the application.
7. ' After recording evidence of the parties the VIIIth Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi (South) under a judgment dated 31-1-1989 dismissed the rent application after holding that there was no default in payment of rent by the respondent No,1 and that the ground of personal requirement was not pressed.
8. ' Appellant challenged aforesaid judgment dated. 31-1-1989 in F.R.A. No,372/99 which was accepted by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 13-5-1990 when under a consent order the rent case was remanded to the trial Court with direction to give fresh finding on the issue about bona fide personal requirement and then dispose of the rent application under a judgment.
9. ' After remand the trial Court under a fresh judgment dated 13-5-1991 found that the ground of personal bona fide requirement was not proved and accordingly the rent case was dismissed with costs on parties. Hence this appeal.
10. ' Mr. Amir Malik, learned counsel for the appellant referred to para. 5 of the rent application and para. 3 of the affidavit of Saleem Khan attorney of the appellant and argued that family of the appellant consisted of five members while they were occupying only two rooms and hence there was need for the premises in litigation. It was further argued that evidence of Salim Khan was supported by the evidence of Ayub Khan who was a neighbour. Learned counsel for the appellant conceded that a suit filed by Salim Khan against respondent No,2 for pre-empting the sale by which half of the disputed property was purchased was pending and so also a suit filed by the respondent No, 2 for partition of the property. That because of such litigation respondent No, 2 was not supporting the case of the appellant. It was next argued that respondent No,1 was inducted in the disputed premises as tenant, by the appellant in the year 1966 and at that time respondent No,2 had no right or interest in the disputed property. In respect of competency of the appellant to maintain application for eviction, it was argued on her behalf that when there are co-sharers of a property, either of them can maintain rent application for eviction of his/her tenant. It was emphasised that respondent No, 2 had not inducted the respondent No, 1 in the disputed premises.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant cited the cases of:
(i) Parvaiz Akhtar v. Dr. Muhammad Ahsan and others (PLD 1988 SC 734).
(ii) Abdul Ghani v. Abrar Hussain (F.R.A. No, 740 of 1988, decided on 3-12-1991 by the High Court of Sindh).
(iii) Fakhrudddin v. Syed Muhammad Rashid (F.R.A. No, 167 of 1987 decided on 21-12-1989 by the High Court of Sindh: 1991 CLC Note 210 at p.165.
12. ' Mr. Abdul Wajid Wyne learned counsel for the respondent No,1 tenant argued that one of the two owners of a rented property, cannot seek eviction of a tenant of such property, on the ground of bona fide personal requirement unless the other co-owners consented. It was further argued that while the appellant had become co-owner due to inheritance, the respondent No,2 had become owner after purchase. The learned counsel for the respondent No,1 tenant cited the cases of:
(i) M. Altaf Hussain and others v. Peshawar Motors Limited (1990 M LD 337).
(ii) Parvaiz Akhtar v. Dr. Muhammad Ahsan add others (PLD 1988 SC 734).
(iii) Abdul Ghani v. Abrar Hussain Civil Petition No, 66-K of 1992/Civil Appeal No, 53/92, decided by Supreme Court of Pakistan on 10-3-1992.
13. ' Mr. Manohar Lal, learned counsel for respondent No,2 adopted the arguments of learned counsel for the respondent No,1 and went on to argue that the respondent No, 2 was not recognized as co- owner in spite of the fact that he was in possession of a registered sale-deed. It was further argued that since two suits, one for pre-emption and another for partition in respect of the property in litigation, were already pending, hence it would not be proper to order eviction of the tenant. It was added that the appellant can file a fresh rent application after she becomes exclusive owner of the premises in litigation, because respondent No, 2 may like respondent No,1 to continue as tenant in the disputed premises.
14. It is correct that the appellant is not the only owner of the property in litigation. It was contended on her behalf that despite her (appellant) being co-sharer in the property in litigation she could maintain application for eviction of her tenant. Reliance was placed on the case of Parvaiz Akhtar v.
15. Dr. Muhammad Ahsan and others (PLD 1988 SC 734), where it was held that if A the premises in dispute was not required by all the three owners jointly but only by one of them, such landlord can take advantage of the provision about eviction of a tenant on the ground of personal bona tide requirement. As against this it was contended on behalf of respondent No, 1 /tenant that one of the' co-owners cannot seek eviction of a tenant on personal bona fide requirement. Reliance was placed on the case of M. Altaf Hussain and others 1990 M LD 337, where the case of Parvaiz Akhtar was relied upon and the view expressed was that even one of the heirs of a deceased landlord can legally seek eviction of the tenant on the ground of bona fide personal use if his co-landlords do not object to it. In view of the Supreme Court authority it can be held that present application moved by the appellant is maintainable. Moreover respondent No, I was inducted as tenant by the appellant. Respondent No, 2 Hakim Jamil Ahmed admitted in his cross-examination that when he purchased half of the building in which room in litigation was situated, respondent No, 1 was already in possession of such room as tenant and the rent case was already pending against the respondent No,1.
16. ' Respondent No,2 Hakim Jamil Ahmed claimed that he along with minor Shakeel Ahmed was owner of half share of the property, of which disputed room was a part. In his cross-examination Hakim Jamil Ahmed admitted that previously the building in question consisting of 12 tenements, was owned by Sultan Khan and Gulab Khan. He claimed to have purchased 1/2 share of the building from Qayum Khan son of Gulab Khan. He admitted that the appellant was legal heir of Sultan Khan and owning half of the building. These admissions make out that the respondent No, 1 is tenant of the appellant for all intents and purposes and joining of respondent No,2 in the rent case on 2-10-1985 is of no consequence so far as the relationship between the appellant and respondent No,1 is concerned. There is pendency of Suit No,422/80 filed by the appellant's son Saleem Khan for pre-empting sale of a part of the property in litigation by legal heirs of deceased Gulab Khan to respondent No, 2 Jamil Ahmed Siddiqui and Shakeel Ahmed Siddiqui. Plaint in said suit was rejected but such order was reversed in Revision Application No,226 of 1983. Respondent No, 2 Jamil Ahmed and Shakeel Ahmed filed Suit No,996 of 1987 against the appellant and her children for partition of the property in litigation. It has not been made out, as to how pendency of these suits would affect the present rent proceedings initiated for eviction of the respondent No,l.
17. In support of her case, the appellant filed affidavits-in-evidence of Saleem Khan and Ayub Khan her sons. They stated that their family consisted of five members who were living in premises consisting of two rooms which accommodation was insufficient for their needs. They added that their marriages were held up for want of accommodation. They admitted that another tenement had fallen vacant in the same building but it was in a I damaged condition and not fit for human habilitation. In his cross-examination, Saleem Khan stated that building in question consisted of 14 tenements and that rent cases had been filed against all the tenants except one. He admitted that possession of one tenement was received. It was not suggested to Saleem Khan in his cross- examination if the tenement of which possession was received, was in a fit or habitable condition.
18. Saleem Khan admitted that there was dispute over title of the property in question, as the respondent No,2 was claiming to be owner of half of the property and that he had been successful in his litigation up to the first appeal. Respondent No,2 has however, admitted title of the appellant to the extent of half share, being legal heir of Sultan Khan. Saleem Khan and Ayub Khan admitted in their cross-examination that the appellant had one more property in Mahajir Camp and one tenement was lying vacant in same building. That was however in damaged condition. It was not explained as to why the damaged premises in possession of the appellant have not been repaired.
19. Appellant Mst. Sara Bai did not enter the witness-box but her sons gave evidence which is consistent with averments in the rent application and is not shattered in cross-examination or rebutted by evidence of the respondent No,1. During cross-examination of Saleem Khan and Ayub Khan by respondent No,1 an effort was made to challenge their title, although as held in the case of Parvaiz Akhtar (PLD 1988 SC 734), a tenant being an outsider has no locus standi to call in question validity of deed which stood in favour of his landlord.
20. ' On behalf of the respondent No,1, its president Ibrahim filed his affidavit-in-evidence in which he said that the respondent No, 1 was tenant in one of the rooms on the ground floor of the property in litigation. Ibrahim controverted claim of the appellant that she required the premises in dispute for her personal use. It was added that family of the appellant had two flats on the first floor, two flats on the roof and the ground floor, in the same building, besides a house in Mohajir Camp. In his cross-examination, Ibrahim stated that the disputed premises were situated on ground floor of the building while the appellant also resided on the ground floor. He admitted that the premises were adjacent to the premises occupied by the appellant. He admitted in cross-examination that there is no premises lying vacant on the ground floor of the building. Evidence of respondent No,1 is not sufficient to rebut evidence of the appellant.
21. ' In the case of Abdul Ghani v. Abrar Hussain (F.RA. No, 740/88, decided on 3-12-1991) a rent appeal was adjourned sine die and the appellant/landlord was directed to approach the competent authorities and obtain PTD. Such order was reversed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Civil Petition No, 66-K of 1992, decided on 10-3-1992. In case of Fakhruddin (F.RA. No,167/1987) the landlord had brought sufficient evidence on record to show that he required the demised premises in good faith for personal bona fide use and that his tenant had no justification to retain possession of the demised shop and in the circumstances eviction was ordered.
22. The evidence on record is sufficient to establish that the appellant requires the demised premises in good faith for accommodating her family people. Hence this appeal stands accepted with no order as to costs and the impugned judgment is reversed and the respondent No,1 is ordered to be evicted from the premises in litigation after retaining its possession for two months subject to deposit of rent for said period.