1. ' This is an appeal under section 21 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter called Rent Ordinance) directed against the judgment/order, dated 16-10-1997 passed in Case No,716 of 1995 Mst Syeda Badrunnisa Begum v. Mst. Shagufta Begurn by learned III-Rent Controller Karachi Central whereby an application for eviction under section 15 of Rent Ordinance filed by respondent was allowed on the grounds of personal requirement and default in payment of rent.
2. ' Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/landlady filed eviction application against the appellant/tenant on the ground that she has failed to pay rent from January, 1982 to December, 1985 consequently appellant/ tenant has committed default in the payment of rent and further that she required to premises in dispute for her children so as to adjust them in the disputed premises, considering that the premises in her occupation was insufficient. The appellant/ tenant tiled written statement wherein she denied the allegations contained in the eviction application and stated that the rent was paid for the said period but no rent receipt was issued to her consequently since April, 1989 she started sending rent through money order to the respondent therefore there was no default in the payment of rent and in support money order receipts and money order coupons have been tiled by the appellant. The appellant/tenant further stated that need of the respondent is not based on good faith but is mala fide. After framing of the issues, the respondents/ landlady filed her affidavit-in-evidence so also the appellant/tenant filed her affidavitin-evidence and produced certain documents in the form of photocopies of money order coupons and postal money order receipts. The parties/respondents who filed affidavits-inevidence were cross-examined by the adversary respective counsel for parties. After recording the above evidence and hearing the counsel for parties, the eviction was ordered on the grounds stated above.
3. ' I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record and proceedings of the case and the case-law cited by them.
4. ' The counsel for respondent has not pressed the ground of default for eviction of the appellant, therefore, finding on default in payment of rent is set aside.
5. ' So far the ground of personal requirement, learned counsel for appellant has argued that the respondent/landlady has failed to prove good faith for her requirement and further that mere statement of the respondent would not be sufficient to pass an order of eviction against the appellant/tenant.
6. ' Learned counsel for respondent has argued that the respondent/landlady in the eviction application in para.8 has stated that the premises in question was required by her for her personal use and to adjust her children hence she neede dthe premises and the said statement has been corroborated by the respondent/landlady in her evidence by stating the same in para. 7 of her affidavit-inevidence and in the cross the bona fide requirement has not been challenged by the appellant's learned counsel, therefore, the personal requirement stood proved hence the finding of the learned Rent Controller called for no interference.
7. ' I have minutely gone through the record and proceedings of the case and have appraised the evidence adduced by parties. The respondent/landlady has on oath stated/ deposed that she needed the premises in dispute for her and to adjust for children and in the cross she has elaborated that the accommodation with her was, not sufficient to accommodate her sons in the premises in her occupation. The very fact that the said statement of the respondent/landlady has not been challenged, therefore, it cannot be said in the circumstances that the respondent/ landlady has not proved her personal requirement in good faith. The contention of the learned counsel for appellant that the respondent/landlady has not suggested or challenged the contents of affidavit filed by appellant with regard to personal requirement to be mala fide in the cross, therefore, the personal requirement in good faith cannot be said to have been proved. The said contention has no merit because it was or the appellant/tenant to challenge the personal requirement of the respondent/ landlady to be not in good faith and was mala fide with regard to the premises in dispute and not for the respondent to challenge that denial of appellant was not based in good faith.
8. ' From the above evidence it stands proved that the need/requirement of the respondent/landlady is bona fide and is in good faith, therefore, no exception could be taken to the finding of the learned Rent Controller and the contention of the learned counsel for appellant that the need of the respondent is not based in good faith has no merit.
9. ' Learned counsel for appellant/tenant has lastly contended that because the L.Rs, of the appellant/tenant have not been joined, therefore, the present application for eviction against the appellant was not maintainable. I do not find merit in the said contention considering that the ground of default in payment of rent has not been pressed by the respondent, but the ground of personal requirement for eviction of the appellant would not make the application for eviction not maintainable if all the legal heirs of one of the tenants are not joined as respondents in the eviction application.
10. ' Accordingly, appeal has no merits which is hereby dismissed. However, three months' period is given to the appellant/ tenant to vacate the premises subject to deposit of rent for the said period.