1. ' This appeal has been filed challenging the orders passed by the Rent Controller in Rent Case No,835 of 1988.
2. Briefly the facts are that the present respondent is the owner of house constructed on Plot No,117, Block III, C.P. & Berar Cooperative Housing Society, Karachi, hereinafter referred to as the 'demised premises'. The demised premises were let out to the appellant 28 years back by father of the respondent for office purposes but the same was converted into residential premises. The two grounds urged in the rent case are that the appellant has defaulted in payment of rent since September, 1988, and that the respondent required the demised premises for his personal use as he has 11 children of whom four of his sons are now of marriageable age and their marriages are delayed for want of accommodation.
3. ' The appellant contested the rent case and filed his written objections. The case of the appellant is that he has never been a defaulter in payment of rent; and that the premises are not required by the respondent for his personal use. He has further contended that respondent is living in another three-storeyed house in the same locality bearing No,157; and that two portions of the said house were let out by him to different tenants two and six months prior to filing of the rent case and also that one portion in the said premises is lying vacant.
4. ' Both the parties filed their affidavits-in-evidence and were cross-examined. The Rent Controller after hearing the parties passed the impugned order whereby he disallowed the plea of the respondent with regard to default in payment of rent but he held that the demised premises were required by the respondent for his personal use. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
5. ' I have heard Mr. Nasrullah Awan, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S. Hassan Imam Rizvi, the learned counsel for the respondent. The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that admittedly the landlord is living in House No,157 and, therefore, would not require the demised premises for his use. He has further submitted that it is not merely the ipsi dixit of the landlord but in order to prove his requirement for personal use he has to show the good faith. The learned counsel has submitted that the fact that the two tenements were let out by the respondent two and six months prior of the filing of the rent case itself shows that he does not need the demised premises for his personal use.
6. ' As against this Mr. Hassan Imam Rizvi, the learned counsel for the respondent has argued that it is prorogative of the landlord to choose as to which premises he would require for his personal need.
7. He has also submitted that it is only the oral word of the appellant that the two tenements were let out by the landlord before filing of the rent case; and that third tenement is lying vacant.
8. ' I have considered the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the lower Court. No doubt the burden is on the landlord to prove that he required the demised premises in good faith. In the present case the respondent in his application for ejectment as well as affidavit-in-evidence has asserted that he has 11 children; and that four of his sons are of marriageable age and their marriages are delayed for want of accommodation. He has also stated in his affidavit that the premises in his possession in House No,157 are not sufficient for the need of the entire family. There is no evidence brought by the appellant in rebuttal of the above contentions of the respondent. The appellant has not examined any witness or the tenants to whom the said premises are alleged to have been rented out before the filing of the rent case. It is only oral word of the appellant which is not supported by any corroborative evidence. The respondent has categorically stated that the other portions of House No,157 are in occupation of tenants. Now it is settled law that in case of personal requirement where owner owns morethan one property, the choice as to which premises he would like for his needs lies with the owner/landlord. It is the prorogative of the landlord to choose the premises for his personal requirement. The landlord is the Judge of the suitability of the premises for his requirement and the tenant cannot have the option to choose which premises would be suitable for the landlord. In the present case the evidence of the respondent is quite consistent to the case set up in the application for ejectment. In these circumstances, I find no grounds for interfering with the orders passed by the Rent Controller. The present appeal is accordingly dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. The appellant shall hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises to the respondent within four months from the date of this order.