1. ' The appellant is tenant in respect of Bungalow No .20-B-1 , South Circular Avenue, Phase II, Defence Housing Authority, Karachi and the respondent is the owner of the said property. The lease agreement executed between the parties is, dated 10-10-1990 and, according to Clause (1) of the same, the tenancy was for a term of 11 months commencing from 15-8-1990. The monthly rent was fixed as Rs,6,000 plus hire charges for fixtures and fittings as Rs,3,000. At the time of execution of the lease a sum of Rs,90,000 was paid as advance rent and hire& charges and a sum of Rs,20,000 was paid as fixed deposit. The agreement was not renewed as the tenant failed to execute the tenancy agreement for the renewal. However, he continued to pay the monthly rent up to 30-6-1993. On failure to pay further rent since June, 1993 onwards, the Respondent/ Landlord filed an application under section 17 of the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act on 19-7-1993 on the ground of default in payment of rent for the period from May, 1993 to July, 1993 and personal bona fide requirement of the landlord to accommodate his family as well as his parents.
2. ' Notice of the application was issued to the tenant who filed written statement, admitting the relationship of landlord and tenant and the execution of the lease agreement, dated 15-10-1990 and the terms thereof and taking the plea that according to the lease agreement the rent could be enhanced at 10% after two years effective from 14-9-1992. However, he denied, the allegation of default and that the premises are needed by the landlord for his personal bona fide need to accommodate his family and parents as, according to him, the parents are living with another brother and that the family of the landlord is living in London while the Landlord himself is working in Saudi Arabia. The father/attorney of the landlord filed his affidavit-in-evidence and was cross- examined while the tenant/ appellant filed his own affidavit-in-evidence and was also cross- examined.
3. ' The learned Rent Controller, on the basis of the pleadings, framed the following issues:
(1) Whether the applicant requires di, premises for his personal use and use of his family in good faith? If so, what is the effect?
(2) Whether the opponent has committed default in payment of rent as agreed upon? If, so what is its effect?
(3) Whether the rate of rent was fixed as Rs,15,000 per month excluding water and conservancy charges w,e,f, 1-7-1993? If so, what is its effect?
(4) What should the order be?
4. ' After hearing the parties, the learned Rent Controller allowed the application on issue No,1 that is for the personal bona fide use of his family and the parents while decided the issue of default in favour of the tenant/Appellant. Hence this appeal. .
5. ' The contention of Mr. Suleman Habibullah, the learned counsel for the Appellant is that the learned. Rent Controller failed to appreciate the evidence on the record and apply his mind to the same as well as the case-law cited before him and, as such the impugned order is a miscarriage of justice and illegal and liable to be set aside. His, next contention was that the learned Rent Controller failed to take into consideration the mala fide intention of the Landlord/respondent to the effect that the purpose of fling of the Rent Case was to enhance the rent.
6. ' On the other hand, Mr. Haleem Siddiqui, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that although it is correct that the parents of the respondent died during the pendency of the case but his family and he himself are keen to come back to Pakistan and settle down and, as such, the respondent needs the premises for his personal bona fide need and the use of his family.
7. ' The only point involved precisely is hither the findings of the learned Rent Controller on Issue No,1 are sustainable or not.
8. ' The learned Rent Controller had discussed the evidence of the respondent and the appellant in detail. In cross-examination the tenant/appellant though pleased that the Landlord has other residential properties in Karachi but he failed to produce any documentary evidence. The document exhibited as Exh.' 0-5' which is copy of ejectment application filed by the present Attorney for ejectment of the tenant from Bungalow No,20-B-2, South Circular Avenue, Defence Housing Authority, Karachi, which, the tenant was contending, belongs to the present respondent/landlord, indicated that the same belonged to the other brother for whom also the father of the present respondent is acting as attorney and it was in these circumstances that the Rent Controller held that the tenant failed to produce any documentary evidence in support of his above contention. The attorney of the respondent in his affidavit-in-evidence as well as in cross- examination admitted that he was the attorney for the other son also and the property mentioned in Exh.' 0-5' belongs to the other son. He stated that the respondent/ landlord of the disputed premises had no other property in Karachi and that the disputed premises was needed by him to settle his family therein. On the basis of this evidence of the attorney of the Respondent, the Rent Controller held that the testimony of the applicant withstood the cross-examination and remained unshaken. Consequently, the applicant/landlord has proved his personal bona fide need.
9. It has been held through various judgments of this Court as well as the Superior Court that it is the prerogative of the landlord to chose the premises where he wants to live. Reliance can be placed on the case of S.M. Nooruddin and others v. SAGA Printers (1998 SCM R 2119) wherein it was held that "mere letting out of other premises by a landlord either before or after the institution of eviction proceedings on the ground of personal need in itself is not always enough to non-suit the landlord.
10. Once the landlord has duly acquitted himself by stating on oath that this requirement is in ' good faith' as understood in law, he should normally be deemed to have discharged his burden, which, thereupon shifts to the tenant for whom it remains initially to cross-examine the landlord and, that being done, lead his own evidence in rebuttal." In the present case, the attorney of the landlord/respondent has clearly stated the personal bona fide need of the owner of the premises wherein the landlord wants to settle his family and to come back and himself settle therein. On the other hand, the tenant failed to bring any documentary evidence on record to support his plea in rebuttal that the landlord has any other property in Karachi, ' In view of the law and the various judgments wherein law has been laid down as stated hereinabove, in my opinion, the order impugned herein is a correct and valid order and as such needs no interference.
11. ' It was in view of the above discussion that, by a short order, dated 2-124998, the appeal was dismissed. However, two months' time was allowed to the Tenant to vacate the premises and hand over peaceful vacant possession of the same to the landlord/respondent.