1. This is an appeal under section 21 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter called Rent Ordinance) directing against an. Order dated 11-12-1993 passed by learned V Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller Karachi East in Rent Case No. 600 of 1990 (Syed Abbas A.I Jafery v.
2. Hamid A.I) whereby an application under section 15 of the Rent Ordinance was allowed and the appellant/tenant was directed to hand over vacant possession of the premises within sixty (60) days from the date of impugned judgment.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent/landlord is the owner of premises on the First Floor of Building on Plot No.845-C, situated in Central Commercial Area, PECHS, Karachi, which was rented out to the appellant/tenant in 1971 at the rate of Rs.300 per month. The respondent/landlord filed eviction application against the appellant/tenant for his eviction on the ground that the tenanment was required by him for the use of his son who was going to be married. The house bearing No. 110-F, Block-2, PECHS, Karachi, which is in possession of the respondent/landlord consists of three bed rooms, a warrandah and a kitchen out of which one bedroom was of small size and was being used as store-rooms. Two bed--rooms and a warrandah are being used as bed room by entire family consisting of respondent himself, his wife, his grown-up son and two grown--up unmarried daughters. The respondent's son has been sleeping in the warrandab. The tenement in question is needed in good faith for respondents son who will reside separately in the said tenement. The appellant/tenant filed written statement sating therein that the respondent landlord wanted to enhance the rent which he refused therefore, this eviction application has been filed. The appellant/tenant also stated that the respondent/landlord has a house of his own constructed on plot admeasuring 300 Sq. Yds. In the same locality which consisted of three bed- rooms on the ground floor besides other rooms and usual amenities which accommodation was more than sufficient for his need hence, the present application for his eviction from the tenement was not mala fide. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that son of respondent would not leave his father as he was old and ailing person therefore, requirement of flat in dispute was not bona-fide. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon Muhammad Hafeez and others v. Fa/ , imad (1995 CLC 1634), Muhammad Moosa Khawaja and another v. Haji Muhammad Umair (1995 M LD 1880), Aftab Ahmad Saeed v. Qmaruddin (1992 M LD 1601), S. M. Zaffar Pervez v. Syed Nasiruddin K. Kamal Sh; through his Legal Heirs (1995 CLC 1719) and Noor A.I v. Saleem (1996 M LD 71).
4. Learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order and has placed reliance upon Mst. Amtul Begum v. Juma Khan (1996 M LD 853), Miss Zaffar Fatima Rizvi v. Syed Saieem Raza (1993 CLC 270), Sultan Shah v. Muhammad Hussain (1995 M LD 847) and Chartered.Bank v. Shirin Bai Y. Sajjan and another (1995 M LD 1054) in support of his case.
5. The learned Rent Controller after framing the issues and recording the evidence allowed the eviction application of the respondent/landlord on the ground of pesonal requirements.
6. I have heard Mr. Baqar Hussain, learned course for the appellant, Mr. Rizwan Ahmad Siddiqui, learned counsel for the respondent, perused the record and proceedings of the case and the cited case law.
7. The respondent/landlord in paras 7, 8 and 10 of the ejectment application has stated about his personal need in respect of tenement in question for his son who was going to be married and further that the present accommodation with him was not sufficient to accommodate his son who would also need separate residence after marriage. The respondent/landord has reiterated his statement in his affidavit-in-evidence and has been corroborated by his witness son-in-law A.H.
8. Jafri. The appellant/tenant in the corresponding pares of the ejectment application in the written statement has not denied that his son was not going to be married or that for that purpose the premises was not required for son's separate residence. The appellant/tenant has only stated that the eviction application is mala fide as he refused to increase the rent therefore, the present eviction application has been filed. The veracity of the respondent and his witness A.H. Jafri the son--in-law of the respondent could not be shaken in respect of personal need of the tenement in question for the purpose of accommodating the son of the respondent who was going to be married. The respondent and his witness have been cross-examined at length by the learned counsel for the appellant but no question in the cross-examination was put to challenge the veracity about the personal need of the tenement for the son of respondent after his marriage. In the circumstances the statement on the said point would be deemed to have been admitted.. It is.
9. Also not denied by the appellant/tenant that the present house which is in occupation of the respondent consisted of only three bed-rooms out of which one room was of small size and was being used as a store-room. It is also admitted. By the appellant/tenant that family of the respondent consisted of respondent himself, his wife, his son and two unmarried daughters. It is natural that after marriage son of the respondent would need a separate residence and the present accommodation would not be sufficient for the respondent to accommodate his married son. So .Far the suitability of accommodation it is the prerogative of the landlord to choose any premises which he considers suitable for his son.
10. Reference may be made to Muhammad Bashir v. Sakhawat Hussain (1991 SCM R 846) wherein it has been observed in para.2 at page 848:-- "Under section 15 of the said Ordinance landlord can apply for eviction of tenant on the grounds mentioned therein including the ground that the premises are required by landlord in good faith for his own occupation or use or for the occupation or use of his spouse or any of his children. The only requirement in this provision for landlord is to show that he requires the premises in good faith. This landlord has stated very clearly in unequivocal terms in the application which he has filed for ejectment as well as in his statement on oath in the Court of Rent Controller--------------------- ---..There appears no legal impediment in the way of the landlord, if he wants to open a medical store and do business in spite of the fact that he is rich and has no children. The landlord can do whatever lie likes with his property and if interest of tenant is involved because property of landlord is rented out to him, then his rights are protected under the rent law. If landlord does riot contravene provisions of the rent law, which allows him the relief, then it is not open to the tenant and even for that matter to the Court, to make a comment as to what the landlord should do or should not do."
11. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that need of the respondent is not bona fide and that respondent could not be left by his son as the respondent was old and ailing person has no merit and substance. The bona fide claim and need of the landlord cannot be restricted and limited by the tenant.