1. ' This appeal under section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 hereinafter called the Ordinance, is directed against order dated 13-12-1988 passed by the then learned IInd Senior, Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Karachi, East, in Rent Case No,214/87, whereby he directed the appellant to vacate premises in question and hand over its vacant possession to respondent within 30 days from the date of the said order. The facts relevant for decision of this appeal are as follows:- ' Respondent Miss Sultan Jehan, on 3-8-1987, filed eviction application against appellant on ground of default in payment of rent and personal bona fide use. The case of respondent is that she is the owner of the house, situate on Plot No,B-108 Block 5 Gulshan-e-Iqbal, Karachi and it was as per tenancy agreement dated 3-5-1982 rented out to appellant on monthly rent of Rs,2,500 which was to be paid in advance before the 10th of every calendar month. It is alleged that appellant did not pay rent in time and he usually paid rent after long intervals. According to her, rent, from September, 1986 to February, 1987 was not paid. She maintained that she requires the premises for her personal bona fide use. The appellant resisted the claim of respondent. He has denied to have committed any default and alleged that respondent preferred to realise rent in lump sum. It is also his case that an amount of Rs,30,000 was paid to respondent as advance, which was to be returned to him at the time of delivering vacant possession of the premises to respondent.
2. According to him, the respondent does not require the premises for her personal bona fide use.
3. ' The respondent filed her affidavit-in-evidence and was cross-examined. The appellant filed his affidavit-in-evidence and that of his witness Ch. Muhammad Ismail. Since the appellant and his witness did not consecutively attend the Court on four dates of hearing for cross-examination, their affidavits-in-evidence were struck down and the side of appellant was closed on 3-10-1988.
4. ' Learned Rent Controller settled the following issues:- "(1) Whether the applicant is wilful defaulter in payment of rent as alleged by applicant?
(2) Whether the applicant requires the demised premises for her personal bona fide use?
(3) What should the order be?"
5. ' On assessm ent of evidence brought on record learned Rent Controller decided Issue No,1 in negative, issue No,2 in affirmative, and consequently he allowed eviction application by the order, which has been impugned in this appeal.
6. ' The finding of learned Rent Controller on the point of default has not been challenged by respondent as such, it attained finality. The only ground, which now is to be considered, is of personal bona fide use.
7. ' Learned counsel for appellant contended that since the side of appellant was closed and appellant and his counsel had a justification to remain absent on those dates, the matter be remanded back to learned Rent Controller for deciding it on merits after allowing appellant to produce himself and his witness for cross-examination. As against this, learned counsel for respondent argued that even if the affidavits-in-evidence of appellant and his witness, on the point of personal need, are taken into consideration, yet it stands proved that respondent is entitled to claim possession of the premises on the ground of personal bona fide use. Under the circumstances and in view of above submissions of learned counsle for the respondent, I think there is no justification for remanding the case. The respondent, in her affidavit-inevidence in para. 5, clearly stated that she does not possess any immovable property, except the premises in question, and presently she is residing in her A brother's house. The appellant, in Written Reply as well as in affidavit-inevidence stated that respondent has various other immovable properties and the accommodation in her brother's house is sufficient for her. Affidavit-inevidence of the witness of appellant is also on the same lines. Though the appellant alleged that respondent was owner of other properties also, but necessary details about any of them, have not been provided. In fact, this allegation is without any substance. The conclusion therefore, would be that respondent is not the owner of any other property, except the premises in question. Learned counsel for respondent submitted that respondent, under the circumstances, is entitled to claim possession of premises for her personal bona fide use. In support of this contention, he cited (1) PLD 1982 Karachi 557 A Muhammad Asif Khan and another v. Mubarak Ahmed, (2) 1983 CLC 961, Muhammad Ismail v.
8. Muhammad Ibrahim, (3) 1983 CLC 1923 MRs, Sadiq v. S. Intekhab Haider Abidi, (4) 1984 CLC 1073, Naeem Metal and Plastic Works v. Mst. Azra Wiqar, (5) 1986 MLD 909 Mst Qamer Sultana v.
9. Muhammad Yousuf Qureshi, (6) 1988 MLD 2747 Akhtar Mahmood Khan v. Zulfiqar Haider Bashir, (7)
10. PLD 1991 Karachi 305, Mst. Naghma Javed v. Mst. Shireen Isa and otheRs, Ratio of above cases is that if landlord has no other premises of his own and is residing with his father/mother, or in the rented premises, is entitled to claim possession on ground of personal bona fide use. Constantly B above rule has been followed and in view of close identity of the circumstances of this case with above reported cases, I also respectfully follow the same. Once it is established that landlord requires the premises for his personal bona fide use, the tenant cannot suggest him in any way otherwise. Under these circumstances, it is the landlord's prerogative and not the desire of the tenant which would prevail.
11. ' Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. The appellant, however, is given four months time from now for handing over vacant possession of the premises in question to the respondent.