1. ' This first rent appeal under section 21(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance, 1979) is directed against the order, dated 14-1-1998 passed by the learned VIth Rent Controller, Karachi East in Rent Case No,927 of 1992 whereby the ejectment application was allowed and the appellant was directed to hand over vacant possession of the house No,A-47, Al-Hilal Cooperative Housing Society, off University Road, Karachi (hereinafter referred to as the demised premises) which is in occupation of the appellant as tenant at the monthly rent of Rs,1,700. Ejectment was sought mainly on the ground of personal bona fide requirement of the respondent and her daughter.
2. ' According to the respondent originally the demised premises belonged to her sister Malika Parveen who is presently residing in U.S.A. On 1-1-1989 during her visit to Karachi she orally gifted the demised premises to the respondent and the appellant had been paying the rent to her.
3. Subsequertly Mst. Malika Parveen also executed and registered the requisite declaration confirming the oral gift of the demised premises vide Registration No,2163 Book No,1, dated 1-8-1992 M.F. Roll No,1611, dated 15-8-1992. She also averred that she was serving as teacher in a school in Kuwait and now has returned to Pakistan permanently. At present she is residing in her brother's house alongwith her daughter.
4. ' The appellant filed his written statement wherein the relationship of landlord and tenant was denied as according to him Mst. Malika Parveen is. The real owner and landlady of the demised premises. He also denied the fact that the respondent has returned to Pakistan permanently.
5. ' Affidavits-in-evidence were field by the parties and they were cross-examined by their learned Advocates.
6. ' The learned Rent Controller framed the following points for determination:
(1) Whether there exists relationship of landlord and tenant?
(2) Whether the premises in question is required by the applicant in good faith for his personal bona fide use?
(3) What should the order be?
7. ' Both the above points were answered in favour of the respondent and the ejectment application was allowed.
8. ' I heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
9. ' Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent failed to prove that she is the owner and/or landlady of the demised premises. Therefore, finding of the learned Rent Controller on this point is erroneous. He further submitted that the learned Rent Controller also misread and misappreciated the evidence brought on record in respect of the bona fide requirement of the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned judgment.
10. ' On careful examination I find absolutely no force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant in his affidavit-inevidence stated that Mst. Malika Parveen is the owner and not the respondent but in cross-examination he admitted as follows:-- "It is correct that Parveen had gifted the property to her sister/applicant. It is correct that I am sending rent to the applicant. I do not know whether applicant has come to Pakistan after leaving Kuwait. It is correct that applicant is residing in the house of her brother. Same house is the adjoin property."
11. The burden to prove her bona fide requirement was on the respondent. She has specifically taken up such a plea in para. 3 of her application as well as in the notice, dated October 10, 1992 which was sent by the learned counsel for the respondent to the appellant as well as in the affidavit-in- evidence and this statement on oath has remained totally unshaken in cross-examination. On the other hand the statement of the respondent as a whole lends support to the claim of the respondent. The learned Rent Controller has properly appreciated the evidence on record and the impugned order is unexceptionable. Accordingly this appeal having no merits is dismissed. The appellant is directed to hand over vacant possession of the demised premises to the respondent within 60 days subject to payment of rent regularly.