' NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, J.---This appeal with leave of the Court, under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, is directed against judgment dated 26-5-1996 of learned Judge in Chamber, High Court of Sindh, whereby order dated 12-9-1992 of Rent Controller, Karachi Central, evicting respondent Muhammad Idris from the premises in question was set side and eviction application of appellant Muhammad Ali Pinham was dismissed.
2. The appellant on 11-4-1989 had filed eviction application under section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, against abovenamed respondent for his eviction from House No,A- 269/12, situated at Gulberg F.B. Area, Karachi 38 (hereinafter referred to as "the premises") on the grounds of default and personal bona fide use. It was alleged that the appellant was the owner of the premises and the respondent was tenant in respect thereof at the rate of Rs,1,200, per month since 1968. The application was contested and learned Rent Controller rejected the plea of default, but allowed eviction of the respondent on the ground of personal bona fide use.
3. The respondent challenged above order before High Court and learned Judge in Chamber, allowed the appeal and dismissed the eviction application by the impugned judgment.
4. Leave to appeal was granted, vide order dated 13-10-1996, to consider whether the evidence on record was sufficient to justify the plea of bona fide personal use.
5. The case of the appellant on above point was that, he was residing in one room rented flat having No,13, ,Karim Bakhsh Building since 1948 and that said building was old and in dilapidated condition. It is alleged that its owner intended to demolish it and served notices upon the tenants, including the appellant. Also, it was alleged that adjacent building, which was similar, had already been demolished for safety reason. The appellant claimed that he being old, retired and sick wanted to occupy the premises as one of his sister was residing in.Said locality and she was also looking after him. It was urged that, except the premises, he had no other property to live in.
6. Learned Rent Controller having taken into consideration above facts, allowed eviction application but said finding was reversed by the High Court with an observation that appellant had failed to establish that he required the premises in good faith for his bona fide personal use. While dealing with above proposition, learned High Court observed as follows:-- ' "It is true that the respondent does not own any other house and there is no controversy regarding this aspect of the case, the fact remains that he failed to prove his requirement as genuine and bona fide.
7. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that he is a man of more than 70 years and needs the premises for his own use. Learned counsel also argued that, in view of advance age of the appellant, and his various ailments including eye-cataract in both the eyes, the ground of bona fide requirement was established with irrefutable evidence, yet, learned High Court recorded finding otherwise. He also argued that admittedly the appellant is not the owner of any other property, as such, on this ground alone he was entitled to the eviction of the respondent.
8. In support of above contentions, he cited (i) Messrs Tiges Wire Product Ltd. v. S. Abrar Hussain (1983 SCM R 402), (ii) Nighat Riaz v. Manzoor Hassan (1991 SCM R 1434). In case of Messrs Tiger Wire Product Ltd. v. S. Abrar Hussain, it was held that tenant could not object if landlord was showing extravagance in occupying the big house owned by him. In case of Nighat Riaz v. Manzoor Hassan, following dictum was reiterated:-- "It is now well-settled that the fact that the landlord is occupying other rented premises or is living with relatives is no ground to disentitle him from occupying his own premises. Therefore, we find that the reasons which prevailed with the learned Rent Controller and the learned Judge in the High Court refusing the prayer of the appellant are not sustainable."
9. In view of above, we are of the view that the respondent was rightly ordered to be evicted from the premises on the ground of personal bona fide use. We are unable to persuade ourselves with the views of learned Judge in Chamber, that mala fide was established on the part of the appellant.
10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, impugned judgment is set aside and the respondent is directed to hand over vacant possession of the premises to the appellant within 3 months from now. In case above order is not complied with, the writ of possession shall be issued without notice and with police aid, if necessary. The appellant shall be entitled to withdraw the rent deposited by the respondent in the Court.