' SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.-This appeal with leave of the Court is directed against judgment date 19-4- 1992 of High Court of Sindh, Karachi, whereby F.RA. No,581 of 1991 filed by respondent herein namely Mrs. Daulat Roshan Ali, who is tenant, is accepted and in the result order of eviction passed against her on the ground of requirement of demised premises for bona fide personal need is set aside.
2. Briefly stated the relevant facts in the background are that appellant before us namely Mrs. Shahnaz Begum, who is landlady, filed application for eviction under section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, on the ground that she was living temporarily in the house of her father- in-law, who had entered into agreement for sale of that house and for that reason there was no other way out for her except to live in the flat owned by her which was occupied by the tenant. On the other hand tenant took up stand in the written statement that landlady owns accommodation in Flats Nos.B-6 and A-10 in the same building in which demised flat is situate and brothers of landlady and her husband had been allowed to occupy those two flats. Both the parties produced evidence and examined witnesses.
3. Since there was one issue with regard to the requirement of demised premises for bona fide personal use, the learned Rent Controller after evaluation of evidence brought on the record, allowed eviction on the ground that tenant failed to prove that landlady owned two other Flats No,B-6 and A-10 in the same building. However, appeal filed by the tenant is allowed on the ground that the landlady in the first instance has failed to prove that her father-in-law had entered into agreement for sale of his house and in such circumstances she has failed to prove bona fides of her requirement and good faith.
4. Landlady stated in her application for eviction in paragraph 4 that her father-in-law had entered into agreement for sale of the house in which she and her other family members resided and the said sale transaction would be finalised by 23-3-1988. Landlady examined her husband Muhammad Ehtasham, who has fully supported her but was unable to give details of the transaction of sale of the house by his father. He did not produce copy of sale agreement nor could give name of the purchaser. Landlady examined her father-in-law Muhammad Naseem, who deposed that he proposed to sell the house in which his daughter-in-law and her family lived with him and admitted that in his affidavit of evidence he has not mentioned the name of the purchaser. He has admitted that advertisement for sale of that house which appeared in the newspaper was given by the purchaser. Landlady has also examined Haji Yousuf, who claims to be witness for transaction of sale of the house owned by Muhammad Naseem and further stated that transaction had to be completed on 23-3-1988 but time had been extended for handing over possession to the purchaser by 31st May, 1988.
5. During the pendency of the rent case, landlady filed application under section 151, C.P.C. On 9-7- 1988 informing that in the meantime her father-in-law had handed over possession of his house to the purchaser and she had acquired rented accommodation somewhere else. She prayed that she be allowed to make such amendments in her application and affidavits of evidence of her witnesses. This application was placed on the record but no order was passed on it. On the other hand tenant examined her husband Roshan Ali, who supported her in his affidavit in evidence and claimed that sale agreement was not produced and, therefore, requirement of landlady was not bona fide. He also asserted that landlady owns two other flats in the same building but was unable to give proof. No other witness was examined by the tenant and her side was closed.
6. We are of the view that in this case it was not necessary to insist for production of agreement of sale of the house of father-in-law of landlady. If the agreement was not produced, it would not matter much for the reason that transaction could be oral as well. So far landlady is concerned, it was enough for her to show that she was living temporarily in another house where she could not stay anymore and had been asked to make alternate arrangement. It was enough if her father-in- law had asked to go as he could not accommodate her any more in his house without assigning any reasons. He is under no legal obligation to accommodate his daughter-in-law and is not required to give any reason for withdrawal of that facility. Landlady has produced evidence that she was compelled to leave the house of her father-in-law and had acquired another rented accommodation. There ' is some evidence on the record produced by the landlady that her father- in-law proposed to sell that house and in fact handed over the possession to the purchaser. This evidence is more than enough to prove the bona fides of the requirement of the landlady. Now if tenant takes up the plea the requirement of landlady is not bona fide and is mala fide for the reason that she owns two other flats in the same building which she could occupy without disturbing her tenancy. Tenant has failed to produce any material on the record in support of assertion that landlady owns two other flats in the same building which are lying vacant. Tenant has failed to discharge that burden. Attorney of tenant has admitted in the cross-examination that he has no written proof regarding renewal of tenancy agreement and ownership of landlady over flats other than disputed premises.
7. For facts and reasons mentioned above, we set aside impugned judgment of the High Court and restore order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller. In the result this appeal is allowed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.