1. Being aggrieved by the order dated the 31st January, 1995 passed by the learned Second Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Hyderabad in Rent Case No.37 of 1994 ordering his eviction from house No. 181-C, Block-B, Unit No.9, Shah Latifabad, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as "demised premises") the tenant has filed this appeal calling in question the said Order.
2. The respondent as owner/landlord of the demised premises filed an application under section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 on 17-2-1994 for eviction of the appellant from the demised premises which had been let out to him on monthly rent at the rate of Rs.1,200 in 1983 on the ground of bona fide personal requirement. The rent was increased from Rs.1,200 to Rs. 1,400 excluding electricity, Sui-gas and water charges in 1988. The respondent also stated that he himself is living in rented premises being house No.180, Block-B, Unit No.8, Shah Latifabad, Hyderabad alongwith his dependent daughter after his retirement from Sindh Reserve Police, Hyderabad. He also alleged that his landlady has asked him to hand over vacant possession of her house, therefore, he requested the appellant to hand over vacant possession of the demised premises but he refused to do so.
3. The appellant filed his written statement denying the claim of the respondent as alleged in the application. He asserted that at the time of creation of tenancy the respondent had promised not to disturb the appellant and that he would never insist for vacation of the demised premises but after his retirement he brought pressure and undue influence upon the appellant for vacation of the demised premises. However, the appellant admitted that the respondent is presently putting up in a rented house.
4. Both the parties filed their affidavits-in-evidence and were cross---examined by their respective learned Advocates. After hearing the counsel for the parties and on the basis of evidence brought on record the learned Rent Controller framed the following points for determination:
(1) Whether the premises in question is required by the applicant in good faith?
(2) What should the order be?
5. The learned Rent Controller answered the above issues in the affirmative and consequently allowed the application as stated above.
6. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Aslam Bhatti, Advocate, for the appellant, and Mr. A. K. Khokhar, learned counsel for the respondent and have perused the record.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Rent Controller failed to appreciate the evidence of the respondent/ applicant particularly when he admitted that he never lived in the demised premises and that his only daughter is issueless and his son-in-law is residing at Karachi.
8. Furthermore, the learned Rent Controller ought to have appreciated that since 1983 when he became tenant the appellant is maintaining the said demised premises very well and the respondent has not spent a single pie towards its maintenance. Lastly he contended that the documentary evidence produced by the appellant was also ignored by the learned Rent Controller.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent is living in a rented premises and now after retirement he needs the demised premises for his own occupation to meet his requirements.
10. After going through the evidence I find no force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant. Admittedly the appellant is the tenant of the demised premises and uptill now even after his retirement the respondent is residing in a rented premises. In his affidavit-in-evidence (vide para.4) the respondent has clearly stated that the landlady has requested him to vacate her house which is badly needed by her and as a gentleman he has promised to vacate the same, "very soon as soon as, the property in question is vacated". This evidence has not at all been challenged in cross-examination. However, the respondent conceded that he has never resided in the demised premises but he denied the suggestion that his daughter is residing with his son-in- law at Karachi or that he wanted to eject the appellant to let out the demised premises for higher rent. The appellant in his cross-examination admitted the fact that the respondent has no other accommodation except the demised premises and that after 1988 he was never asked to enhance the rent. Thus the respondent has proved his personal bona fide need and he is entitled to occupy his own house because of the fact that he is living in a rented premises which he has promised to vacate as soon as he gets vacant possession of the demised premises. Even otherwise one must appreciate the advantages of living particularly after retirement in one's own property. This aspect was considered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Col. (Retd.) Syed Muhammad Hassan v. Raza K. Minhas (1991 CLC 2039) and it was observed as under: "One cannot hesitate to make any amount of investment to give desired look to the property, to make changes according to one's own choice and requirement, to accommodate any relative or guests without incurring the risk of eviction and be safe and away from hazards of grumbling of the landlord and in short one's own house, the psychic impact on the children and family members apart. In these circumstances the personal requirement of the landlord is to be treated bona fide if he is living in a rented house or is living as a licensee of some other person unless there be strong circumstances that reflect upon the bona fides."
11. It is also alleged by the appellant that the respondent sought assistance of his former employer and tried to seek his forcible eviction but the matter was compromised on 17-1-1994 due to the intervention of S.H.O., Latifabad though according to the respondent under pressure he was forced to sign the said agreement to vacate the demised premises on 1-2-1994. Whether such agreement Razinama) was made under pressure or otherwise before SHO, Latifabad, Hyderabad is hardly relevant and more so this fact alone would not be a bar to adopt 'the legal course for seeking.
12. Ejectment. Even otherwise I do not find anything on record to substantiate the claim of the appellant that the respondent had promised never to disturb him or to insist for vacation of the demised premises. The conclusion of the learned Rent Controller is based on proper appreciation of the evidence brought on record by the parties and the impugned order require no interference.