1. ' This order shall dispose of this petition, preferred by the petitioner Fakharuddin against the respondent Mst. Salma and others and is directed against the judgment dated 28-1-2002 passed by respondent No.2 in First Regular Appeal No.46 of 2001, whereby the judgment of the Rent Controller was upheld with a direction that the ejection of the petitioner/tenant to vacate the peaceful possession of the premises ground floor House No.B-9, Saifi Nagar; Nashtar Road, Karachi, to the respondent within thirty days from the date of order dated 13-3-2001. Relevant facts in brief giving rise to the institution of this petition against the aforesaid orders are that the respondent No.1 filed ejectment proceedings against the petitioner to vacate the said premises and hand over peaceful vacant possession on the ground of personal need.
2. ' The parties are belonging to Bohra Community and the property/premises in dispute was Settlement Property, which was purchased by the community and thereafter it was sold to the father of respondent No.1 in the year 1985, the demised property was transferredin the name of the respondent No.1 and it was rented out for Rs.80 per month and thereafter the rent amount was increased upto Rs.125 per month. The dispute arose between the parties on account of the exorbitant demand of rent and thereafter respondent No.1 refused to accept the rent and as such the petitioner started depositing the rent in Court. The respondent No.1 stated in the rent application before the learned Rent Controller that the demised premises is required for personal need, which was allowed by the Rent Controller. The said ejectment order was challenged by the petitioner through Regular First Appeal No.46 of 2001, whereby the order of the Rent Controller was maintained. The petitioner/tenant has preferred this petition against the order passed by the two Courts below through this petition.
3. ' The learned counsel for petitioner, at the outset, has raised the following grounds with the prayer that the orders passed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Court be declared null and void:--
(1) That at the time of hearing of the appeal the petitioner tried to adduce additional evidence, but could not succeed and the learned Appellate Court ignored to inquire the factual position in respect of adducing additional evidence and thus have failed to apply the mind and caused irreparable loss to the petitioner.
(2) That the respondent No.2 although has discussed the case at length about the importance of personal need but failed to discuss the requirement and circumstances of the case and also failed to inquire into the matter and erred in appreciating law and administering justice.
(3) That the respondent No.2 failed to appreciate material record available on file and thereby overlooked mala fide and conduct of respondent No.1 for approaching the Court. The respondent has not come to the Court with clean hand either in R.C. No.584 of 2000 or in R.C. No.1029 of 2002 where the respondent No.1 suppressed the facts of obtaining the Flat No.B-9, at the first floor in the same building by order of this Court in First Regular Appeal No.430 of 2000, dated 23-11-2000 and obtained ejectment order on 13-3-2001 by self-determined conduct and suppression of the fact.
(4) That the order appealed against' is coloured with prejudice and bias and is based on preconceive opinion of importance of personal need and the respondent No.2 erred in considering the previous conduct of the respondent in R.C. No.584 of 2000 and also erred in not allowing the additional evidence for considering the material facts arising out of the order of this Court in R.A.
4. No.430 of 2000, whereby the respondent No.1 has obtainedpeaceful vacant possession of her Flat No.B-9 at first floor in the same building as such respondent No.2's entitlement was ceased. On the other hand, the respondent No.1 is guilty of deceiving and not disclosing the facts.
(5) That the order appealed against, is contrary to the principle of law and personal need and both the orders were obtained by suppression of facts, hence liable to be set aside.
5. ' In the alternative, learned counsel for petitioner with the consent of petitioner has requested for extension of six months' time for vacating the premises in question to the respondent without any obstruction. Learned counsel in support of his proposition has relied upon the case of Jehangir Rustam Kakalia' through Legal Heirs v. M.S. Hashwani Sales and Services (Pvt.) Limited (2002 SCM R 241), Abdul Salam v. Banaras Khan (1989 SCM R 98) and S.M. Nooruddin and 9 others v. Saga Printers (1998 SCM R 2119).
6. ' On behalf of the respondent No.1 it is vehemently denied that all these grounds except extension of time were considered by the learned Rent Controller as well as by the Appellate Court and no documentary evidence was adduced that any tactics was arranged by the respondent No.1/landlod for getting the premises vacated. The trial Court and the Appellate Court have discussed at length about the importance of personal need, but no material was available in favour of the petitioner/tenant and while appreciating the evidence the two Courts below had administered the justice to the respondent. It is further urged by the learned counsel for respondent that no document was filed before the Rent Controller or before the Appellate Court for adducing additional evidence for considering the material fact arising out of the orders of this Court in First Regular Appeal No.430 of 2000. On the contrary, the said F:R.A. Was disposed of on the basis of compromise between the relevant parties. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 has not opposed the extension of time in favour of the petitioner/tenant for a period of six months and submits that the same may be extended to the petitioner but upon paying the regular rent of the said premises to the respondent No.1 and the vacant possession be handed over without filing any execution application.
7. ' After going through the facts of the case and after hearing the learned counsel for respective parties and the case-law cited by the learned counsel for petitioner, it is manifestly clear that facts were not concealed and the partie3 were well aware in respect of effecting compromise in First Regular Appeal No.430 of 2000 the respondent No.1 has obtained peaceful vacant possession of her Flat No.B-9 in the same building the respondent No.1 has proved her bona fide under the compromise for their personal need that her family is consisting at least 4/5 persons, who are living in a two room accommodation, which accommodation the opponent has not proved to be owned by Mst. Salma. In cross-examination, it is admitted to the extent that written statement was filed in Rent Case No.584 of 1989 but he did not know about the contents of the said written statement. He had not stated in that written statement that the applicant is also owner of Flat No.B-
8. He could not produce any documentary evidence that the opponent is owner of another flat including B-8. He had no knowledge that the applicant is owner for any other residential premises.
8. The applicant is exclusive owner of demised premises, wherein he was residing as her tenant. It is admitted position, as per pronouncement mentioned above, it is established law that bona fide personal need of the landlord has to be based on concept of good faith, which involves the element of honestly of purpose and reasonableness. It is also established fact that mere letting out of other premises by a landlord either before or after the institution for eviction proceedings on the ground of personal need, in itself, is not always enough to non-suit the landlord. In such circumstances, landlord has a complete option to choose from one of the several tenements occupied by the tenant to avail for the personal requirement. It is not disputed that the respondent No.1 is the owner and landlady of ground floor premises House No.B-9, Saifi Nagar, Nashtar Road, Karachi and he petitioner/opponent is the tenant in the said premises since long and the respondent No.1 is facing difficulties to maintain her family. The petitioner while filing the written statement has admitted tenancy and disclosed that after increase of rent from Rs.80 to Rs.125 per month was being paid but the respondent wanted to create ground of default against him hence the rent was being deposited in MRC No.989 of 1996 in the Court. The respondent No.1 while filing the rent proceedings wherein she described herself as a widow hence said rent case was dismissed on 10-4-2000. The petitioner's averments that the opponent was bent upon to eject him by adopting different tactics on the false and mala fides grounds. According to the pleadings of the parties and the issues framed by the trial Court the respondent No.1 prayed for ejectment of petitioner for personal use and after considering the evidence, the trial Court has given its finding in affirmative after appreciating the evidence. The premises in question was required for the personal use. The said plea should be accepted until. And unless it is otherwise disproved that the B premises is not required for personal bona fide use. The respondent No.1 being lady and owner of the property was living in a rented house and it will not be justified if her.Own flat is not allowed her to live in the same The Appellate Court maintained the findings of the trial Court ; dismissed the F.R.A. On examination the two impugned orders, both the orders are well-reasoned and well- discussed and the same have been !C passed after due appreciation of the evidence. The findings on the m aterial Issue No.1 is very much in accordance with law, therefore, the ground urged by the learned counsel for setting aside the two orders is not sustainable. So far the extention of time for six months to vacate the premises within stipulated period is conceded by the learned counsel after having instructions from his client present in the Court, the petitioner has also conceded in the Court if six months' time is extended the premises in question will be handed over to the respondent No.1 without any obstruction.
9. ' For the foregoing reasons, the judgments impugned in this petition as well as the orders passed in R.C. No.1029 of 2002 do not suffer from any legal infirmity or jurisdictional defect, therefore, this petition has no merits, which is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner is allowed six months' time to vacate the premises in question and hand over its peaceful vacant possession without any obstruction to the respondent No.1 subject to making payment of monthly rent regularly.