' This is first rent appeal under section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the said Ordinance), against the order dated 10-8-1993, passed by the learned III- Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi East, in Rent Case No, 729 of 1990, whereby the ejectment application filed by appellant under section 15 of the said Ordinance was dismissed.
2. The facts which give rise to this appeal are that the appellant is owner of House No, 117/3, C.P. & Berar Cooperative Housing Society, Karachi, and the respondent is his tenant in respect of ground floor, of the said house at the rate of Rs,300 per month. The appellant sought the ejectment of the respondent on the grounds that he had carried out addition and alteration by removing the wooden doors etc. The appellant had further stated in his application that he has eleven children and the accommodation presently in his occupation is not sufficient to his need, therefore, he requires the premises in question in good faith for his own use ad occupation. The appellant had personally approached the respondent for vacating the premises, but he refused to do so. Notice was also served upon the respondent and, thereafter the rent case was filed by the appellant.
3. The respondent in his written statement denied the allegation of the appellant and stated that at the time of commencement of tenancy in the year 1973, he had paid Rs,5,000 as advance rent and also the appellant had taken a loan of Rs,2,000 from him. He also denied the personal need of the appellant stating that he had many houses in Liaquatabad and is residing in building bearing No,157/3, situated in the same locality, where the premises in question is situated.
4. In support of his case the appellant filed his own affidavit-in-evidence and in rebuttal the respondent filed his affidavit-in-evidence. Both were cross-examined.
5. On pleadings of the parties, the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues:---
(1) Whether the opponent removed wooden door and thus made addition and alteration without the consent of the applicant, if so; its effect?
(2) Whether the suit premises is required in good faith by the applicant for his own use and occupation ?
(3) What should the order be?
5. After hearing the parties' counsel he decided both the above issues against the appellant and dismissed the rent case as stated above.
6. The appellant has only contested issue regarding his personal requirement.
' Mr. Hasan Imam Rizvi, for the appellant, has contended that the applicant has fully proved his requirement by filing affidavit-in-evidence, stating therein that he has 11 children and due to short accommodation their marriages have been delayed. According to him no question has been put in cross on the above points and further it is the choice of the landlord to select any premises for his personal use He has relied on the cases of Ishaq v. Haji Wali Muhammad reported in 1983 CLC 1653, Feroz Ahmed v. Mst. Asifa Khatoon, reported in 1983 CLC 1247, Muhammad Shafi v.
Muhammad Adam Khan reported in 1983 CLC 2657, Mansoor Ahmed Gaya v. Mian Rehmatullah reported in 1983 CLC 2332 and Muhammad Ishaque v. Fateh Muhammad and 3 others reported in 1984 CLC 2527.
' Raja M. Jalil Ashraf for the respondent, has supported the impugned order and contended that appellant has not come to this Hon'ble Court with clean hands and has concealed the facts from the Court as during the pendency of the rent case one portion was vacated by one tenant but the same was again rented out by him. His further contention is that admittedly the appellant had received advance rent up to June, 1995 but he filed the present rent case in the year 1990 on the ground of personal need. The appellant is interested only in money and not in the premises. He has relied on the cases of Syed Anisur Rahman v. Mst. Sara Bai reported in PLD 1985 Karachi 714, Moosa Karim v. The State reported in PLD 1985 Karachi 720, Sultan Press Ltd. v. Muhammad Hasan reported in PLD 1985 Karachi 624, Messrs Glaxo Laboratories Ltd. v. The Registrar of Trade Marks, Government of Pakistan reported in PLD 1985 Karachi 630 and Samiullah v. Mst. Begum Jahan reported in 1986 CLC 2628.
' I have given full consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel and gone through the entire material available before me. The appellant in his affidavit-in-evidence has stated that he has got family of 13 members including 11 children and almost all the members of his family are major and are in need of more accommodation. He has filed the photostat copies of National Identity Cards of his sons alongwith his affidavit. He has further stated that he is in need of the rented premises as owing to shortage of accommodation marriages of his elder sons namely Khawaja Salahuddin and Khawaja Ferozuddin are being delayed and there are also negotiations of marriage of his sons namely Khawaja Fahimuddin, Khawaja Nasiruddin and Khawaja Wahabuddin but settlement of marriages could not be taken place due to non-vacation of rented premises of the respondent. The respondent in his cross-examination has not denied the personal need of the appellant and on the contrary he has deposed that he cannot say if the disputed premises is required by the appellant for his own use and occupation.
' He has also admitted in his cross-examination that the appellant has 9/10 children and his one son is serving in K.E.S.C. Nothing has come in rebuttal on the record that the appellant does not have the major sons and that their marriages are not being delayed for want of accommodation, except that the respondent had rented out a portion of ground floor of house No, 157/3, C.P. And Berar Cooperative Society. It is the prerogative of the landlord to select any one portion of his premises for his personal use. He has categorically stated that the present accommodation is not sufficient for his requirements. Mere fact that he had received the advance rent up to June, 1995 cannot disentitle him from his personal bona fide use of the disputed premises. From the evidence on record I am satisfied that the appellant/landlord has proved his personal need, therefore, the order of the learned Rent Controller is liable to be set aside. Accordingly the appeal is allowed with no order as to costs. The respondent is directed to hand over the vacant possession of the premises in question to the appellant within four months from the date of this order.