1. ' This rent appeal has been filed challenging the orders passed by the learned First Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Hyderabad in Rent Case No,360 of 1984.
2. ' The case of the respondent is that she owns a portion of property bearing House No,16-1653/1 Khambati Ghitti, Hyderabad and a house consisting of one room on first floor is occupied by the deceased Haroon appellant who is survived by his L.Rs, the present appellants. The grounds taken for ejectment of the tenant Haroon in the said application were that he is a defaulter in payment of rent, he had caused damage to the premises in dispute and that the premises were required by the respondent for the use of her daughter Mst. Mumtaz. The deceased tenant Haroon denied the claim of the respondent in his written objections. On these pleadings of the parties the following points for determination were settled by the learned Rent Controller:-- ' Point No,1. Whether the opponent has committed default in payment of rent from April, 1978?
3. ' Point No,2. Whether the opponent has damaged the disputed premises?
4. ' Point No,3. Whether the applicant requires the disputed premises?
5. ' Point No,4. What should the order be?
6. ' The respondent filed her affidavit-in-evidence and that of her daughter Mumtaz while the deceased Haroon had filed his own affidavit-inevidence. All of them were cross-examined and the learned Rent Controller answered the first two points in favour of the tenant while answering the third point on the ground of requirement for personal use of the daughter of the landlady, the application for ejectment was allowed and the tenants were ordered to be ejected. Being aggrieved the present appellants have preferred this appeal. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
7. ' The only point for consideration in the present matter is whether the premises in dispute are required in good faith for the personal use of Mst. Mumtaz, the daughter of the present respondent/landlady.
8. ' Mr. Riaz Ahmed, Advocate for the appellants has argued that at the time when this rent case was filed the said Mumtaz was only a student in Liaquat Medical College, Hyderabad, by now, after lapse of nine years she has passed her examination and left as obviously she may have joined some job somewhere. The learned counsel has further submitted that these premises are not suitable for respondent by a lady doctor or for opening a clinic as the same are situated in a dirty lane and are quite congested. He has further submitted that the landlady and her entire family has admittedly migrated to Karachi and have no connection at Hyderabad. In these circumstances, the learned counsel states that the contents of counter-affidavit filed is lacking. As against this Mr. Rafiq Ahmed, Advocate for the respondent has submitted that the present respondent required the premises for the use of her daughter as it has been stated specifically in the evidence that at the time the rent case was filed the said daughter, namely, Mst. Mumtaz was studying in M.B.,B.S and was living in the hostel for which such certificate has also been produced. It is further the case of the respondent that after qualifying in M.B.,B.S. And doing her house job the said Mst. Mumtaz intended to open a clinic at Hyderabad and had to arrange for her residence as she would have to live in the hostel and that for that purpose of her residence she needs the premises in dispute. As regards the suitability Mr. Rafiq Ahmed, Advocate for the respondent has stated that the present appellants, a family of eight members are living in the said premises and it is not apprehensible as to how the same would not be suitable for a single lady to live in the same. Mr. Riaz Ahmed, Advocate for the appellants has further submitted that a Commissioner may be appointed to inspect the site as according to him the same is not suitable. He has placed reliance on the case of Sardar Muhammad Asim v. Sheikh Allah Ditta 1987 SCMR 1778. It may be observed that in the present case the learned counsel for the appellants had not been able to bring on record any evidence except for his own oral word that the premises are not suitable for residence of a lady doctor whereas his own family of eight members is living therein. There is nothing in the evidence as to what are the dimensions of the said premises, the burden was on the appellant as he had taken this plea.
9. ' In these circumstances, I do not think that there is any need to appoint a Commissioner as admittedly a family of eight member is living in this house and the same cannot be said to be unlivable. In view of the above discussion I find no substance in the present appeal which is dismissed with no orders as to costs. The appellant shall hand over the vacant possession of the premises to the respondent within three months from the date of this order.