' This is appeal against the order of the III Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi, Central.
1. The facts leading to its appeal are that appellant filed ejectment application against the respondent on the ground of personal bona fide need, default in payment of water charges, and for impairing the value and utility of the premises. The application was dismissed, as such this appeal.
2. The appellant in his ejectment application has stated that his family consists of ten persons including himself his wife, two of his daughters, one son, one widow, sister, two sons of his widow sister, one grandmother and one brother of his wife. They are living in two-roomed house at Korangi. His present house is insufficient for such a large family. He wants to shift part of his family to the premises in question. He also alleged that water charges of last three years have not been paid to him. The appellant has further asserted that the respondent has impaired the value and utility of the property by fixing the grill in outer varanda, and installing a telephone.
3. The respondent in his written statement has asserted that the persons except his wife, daughters and son are not living with him, but they are living separately. He further asserted that appellant does not want the disputed premises for his personal bona fide need, but only to harass him. The appellant demanded enhancement of rent from Rs,550 to Rs,900 but on refusal of the respondent, he started unauthorised tactics to evict the respondent, as such the respondent filed a civil suit seeking permanent injunction, restraining the appellant from illegally dispossessing him. The respondent in his written statement has denied that the water charges were to be paid to the appellant. He further asserted that by installation of telephone and fixing of grill, the value and utility of the premises is not impaired but has increased.
4. Appellant has examined himself and also Naemuddin and Manzoor Ahmed. The respondent has examined himself also Syed Mehmood Ali and Shaikh Nazir Ahmed.
5. The learned Rent Controller set up the following points for determination:
(1) Whether disputed premises is needed for personal use of the appellant and his children?
(2) Whether persons from Serial Nos.5 to 9 mentioned in para. 3 in Rent Case are included under clause (viii), section 15 (2) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
(3) Whether the water charges are payable as rent by the opponent?
(4) Opponent has impaired the value and utility of the premises? The findings of the Rent Controller on all these points are in negative.
6. The learned advocate for the appellant has argued that the appellant is a respectable officer in State Bank of Pakistan. His house consists of only two rooms, where ten members of his family are residing. It is insufficient for his needs. He wants to shift some of his family members to the house in dispute. He being the owner of the house is fully entitled to have his house vacated as it is needed by him for personal bona fide needs. He has further argued that water charges are also payable by the respondent to the appellant for which he is defaulter. He has also argued that the grill has been fixed without permission of the appellant so also telephone installed. He has relied upon (1)
Farrukhnisa v. Safdar Ahmed and others (PLD 1985 Kar. 639), (2) Muhammad Ashraf and others v.
Khawaja Saeedul Hasan (1986 MLD 1652).
7. The respondent has argued that the appellant wants to shift part of the family members to the premises in question but he has not given detail as to who will be shifted. His daughters are aged about 12/13 years and son only 11 years. As such he will not shift his wife and children. As other members of the family are concerned he has not given any reason as to why they are living with him, what are the ages of sons of his widowed sister and brother of his wife. He further argues that as per section 15 (2), clause (vii) (2), S.R.P.O. None other than owner himself or his wife or his children are entitled for the use of the premises. He further argues that appellant does not want to shift his family but wants to give it to other relatives. As far as the water charges is concerned, the learned Advocate argues that in cross-examination the appellant has himself deposed that he had never asked the respondent in writing to pay water charges. He relied on (1) Agari Amir Ali v.
Abdul Majid (1993 SCMR 67), Mst. Zainab v. Yousuf Ibrahim (1993 MLD 2382), (3) Miss. Zafar Fatima v.
Salim Raza (1993 CLC 270) and (4) Shaikh Muhammad Iqbal v. Saira Bano 1993 CLC 1761).
8. Heard learned advocates for the appellant as well as respondent and considered law produced by the parties.
9. In this case the burden of proof is on the landlord/appellant that his widowed sister, her two sons, grandmother and wife's brother comes under definition of the persons for whose use premises can be required, and also that need is bona fide.
' Section 15 (2) (viii) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 read as under: "(viii) The landlord requires the premises in good faith for his own occupation or use or for the occupation or use of his spouse or any of his children."
It clearly shows that the premises can be acquired only for himself, the spouse or his children.
Sister's sons, grandmother and wife's brother does not come under the provisions of this section.
' Learned advocate for appellant has relied on Mohiuddin Ansari v. Muhammad Arif Siddiqui (1991 CLC 72). It has been held that mother and father also .Comes within purview of "own occupation" of the landlord under section 15(2)(vii) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance.
' Learned advocate for the appellant has cited Mst. Fakhrun Nisa v. Safdar Ahmed and 6 others (PLD 1985 Karachi 639) in which it has been held the term "child" mean sons and daughters but would not mean grandchild.
' As held in Muhammad Ashraf and others v. Khawaja Saeedul Hassan and others (1986 MLD 1652) it has been held that "male children" would imply sons and daughters of the landlord and could not be extended to apply entire progeny of the landlord. Sister's son is not covered by term "male children" of landlord.
In view of the above citation persons for whose occupation the premises can be acquired is appellant, his wife, two daughters and one son only.
10. It has to be seen for family members, whether requirement of the landlord for the premises is bona fide.
' In Noor Muhammad v. Iqbal Ahmed (1985 CLC 1007) it has been held that no hard and fast rules can be laid down for quantum and quality of evidence to prove bona fide need of landlord for seeking eviction of a tenant on that ground that the statement of landlord alone, sufficient to prove his personal requirement, if it can satisfy a prudent mind by objective evidence that such requirement does exist.
11. Learned advocate for the appellant has relied upon Agaria Amir All v. Abdul Majid (1993 SCMR 67), Rajab All v. Darius B. Kandawalla and another (PLD 1984 Karachi 14), Aftab Ahmed Saeed v.
Kamaluddin (1982 MLD 1601), Yaqoob Masih v. Mrs. Louisa De Souza (1992 MLD 1240). In all these authorities it has been held that landlord is entitled to choose the premises for his bona fide need.
In this case it has to be seen whether need of the premises of the landlord is based on bona fide need. It has come on the record that he wants to shift part of family to the premises in question. His family consists of his wife, two daughters aged about 12 and 13 years and the son aged about 11 years. His daughters who were of 12 and 13 years of age at the time of filing of the ejectment application in the year 1986 would be aged about 20 and 21 years by now, and his son will be 19 years.
12. In a Muslim society there is no concept of allowing young and unmarried daughters to live separately from their parents. The appellant is living in Korangi whereas premises in question is situated at Azizabad Karachi. Both the premises are at a distance of 8-10 miles from each other shifting of the young children aged about 20/21 years to the premises in question looks improbable.
13. As regards the water charges there is no tenancy agreement. It has been admitted by the appellant that he had never demanded from respondent in writing to pay water charges.
Appellant in his ejectment application has not specified the amount of water charges which is due against the respondent. As regards the installation c of telephone is concerned it never impairs the utility of premises rather increases utility as telephone is necessity of life.
14. In view of the above discussion I am of the view that the order of the learned Rent Controller is proper, and the circumstances do not require interference and accordingly the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. The impugned order of the learned Rent Controller is maintained.