By consent of the parties, this appeal was directed to be finally heard and decided. The appellant appears to be aggrieved by an order of the learned Rent Controller directing her ejectment from the demised premises owned by the respondents. The admitted facts seem to be that the demised premises comprising of half portion on the Ground Floor of House No. 37, Muslimabad, Karachi had been let out to the appellant who was running a school under the name and title of Habib Academy. The late owner of premises Mst. Khairnunnisa who was in occupation of the remaining part of the house consisting of Ground + Two floors had sought the ejectment of the appellant, inter alia, on the ground of bona fide personal need. It was contended that the appellant was living with her children in joint family i.e. With one son Shoukat Mirza having four sons who were married and had children, one son Yousuf Mirza with three sons and two daughters, one son Sikandar Mirza, with daughter and wife, one son Hyder Mirza with two daughters, one widow daughter and with unmarried daughter. In all it was said that 33 persons were residing in the remaining part of the house and the second floor had been temporarily constructed with no proper roof and the inhabitants were suffering great hardship. Finding the requirement of personal need proved, the learned Rent Controller passed an ejectment order, dated 18-3-1999. Mr. S.M. Akhtar Rizvi, learned counsel, for the appellant argued that no details about accommodation in question were given in the ejectment application and the number of rooms were not specified. He further contended that number of children of all the children of the appellant was also not stated and therefore, bona fide were not proved. Learned counsel further contended that the respondent had not disclosed the fact of her ailment in the ejectment application which was referred to in the evidence and considered by the learned Rent Controller.
2. With profound respect I regret I am not impressed by either of the contentions. It is well-settled that a Court cannot sit in judgment over the particulars of personal requirement of any person and all that it could do is to examine whether the landlord's claim appears to be genuine and in good faith. There is ample evidence on record that the appellant's case was that the accommodation in her possession was not sufficient to enable 33 persons to live comfortably and that does not appear to have rebutted. Mr. Akhtar Rizvi pointed out that the unmarried daughter of the respondent No.1 had got married after a witness had been cross-examined but the learned Rent Controller did not allow such evidence to be brought on record. I may only mention that such change in circumstances would have only reduced the number of residents to 32.
3. Learned counsel further argued that the respondent No. 5 had brought a false certificate as to her ailment in attempt to show that the premises at the ground floor was required by her and the appellant's application to call the aforesaid Doctor was wrongly dismissed. This argument might had force in other situation but once it is shown that the accommodation in possession of respondents was not sufficient to house 32 E people, the question of inability of the respondent No. 5 to climb stairs becomes rather superfluous. Learned counsel also contended that the respondents had constructed two showrooms on the premises instead of constructing living rooms but the answer is that an owner is always at liberty to utilize his property (subject to law) and to develop the way he likes and not according to desire of the tenant.