Find a Lawyer

First Rent Appeal No.139 of 1983, decided on 15th May, 1984.

---Ss.15 & 21--Bona fide personal requirement--Disputed building constructed on a small plot of 80 or 90 sq. ft:--Marriage of landlord's son withheld, for several years for want of proper accommodation- Witness of tenant admitting that he had been hearing that marriage of landlord's son had been held up for 4-5 years--Landlord's witnesses fully corroborating claim as contained in ejectment application--Bona fide requirement of landlord, held, proved in circumstances.

Ashraf Khan Tanoli for Appellants.

Abrar Hassan for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 15th May; 1984.

This is first appeal from the order of learned IXth Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi dated 16th January, 1983, whereby he had allowed the ejectment application of the respondent against the appellant in respect of groundfloor of the house bearing No.961 Block-III situated in Liaquatabad, Karachi.

2. This house is a three-storyed building i.e. ground floor plus two floors. Each floor consists of three rooms. The ground floor was rented out to the appellant at Rs.16 per month, but the rent was increased later to Rs.200 per month and such agreement was executed on 2-9-1972 between the parties. On 15th December, 1979 the respondent filed ejectment application against the appellant on the ground that he required the groundfloor for his personal requirement, as the second floor which .he was occupying was insufficient for his requirement. It may be stated that the first-floor was already rented out to another tenant about five years prior to the filing of the present ejectment application.

3. The grounds for ejectment urged by the respondent in his ejectment application were that the marriage of his son, who was grown up, had been hold up for want of sufficient accommodation and that the respondent's wife was a heart patient, therefore it was necessary to shift her to the groundfloor.

4. The plea of the appellant in his written statement was of denial. Hence the learned Rent Controller framed only one issue as under:----

"Whether the respondent requires the premises in good faith for his personal bona fide use and the use of his family."

5. In support of the above issue the respondent filed his own affidavit and that of his son Jamal Hussain. Appellant Ahsanullah had also filed his affidavit, but he died during the proceedings. Therefore, his L.Rs., who are the present appellants, were substituted for him. Ahsanullah could not be even cross-examined before he died. Hence on record there is only statement of Sarwatullah on behalf of the appellant whose solitary statement constitutes evidence in rebuttal.

6. After discussing the evidence of the above witnesses, the learned Rent Controller was convinced that the respondent had proved his bona fide requirement for the groundfloor and consequently he allowed the ejectment application.

7. Mr. Ashraf Khan Tanoli learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the learned Rent Controller was not justified in shifting the burden of the issue upon the appellant and upon basing the decision on the admission of the appellant's witness Sarwatullah.

8. I have gone through the evidence and find that both Muhammad Iqbal Hussain and his witness Jamal Hussain have fully proved their bona fide requirement. Both of them had stated that the marriage of Jamal Hussain, who is son of the respondent, has been withheld for several years for want of proper accommodation. During arguments it was conceded by the parties that the building in question is constructed on a small plot of 80 or 90 sq. ft. It would thus be evident that each floor of this building on the small plot must consist of small rooms. The respondent's that three rooms on the top floor in which he is residing, are insufficient because his son Jamal Hussain has now grown up and is likely to be married and that the marriage has been withheld for several years is fully supported by Jamal Hussain.

9. The learned Rent Controller had believed the above evidence in the context of certain admissions made by the appellant's witness Sarwatullah, who admitted that he had been hearing that the marriage of the respondent's son Jamal Hussain has been held up for 4-5 years. Sarwatullah further stated that he did not know whether the requirement of the respondent for the groundfloor was bona fide. It would, therefore, not be correct to say that the learned Rent Controller had based his decision entirely on the admissions made by Sarwatullah in favour of the respondent. The two witness produced in support of the ejectment application namely, Muhammad Iqbal Hussain and Jamal Hussain had also fully corroborated their claim as contained in the ejectment application.

I, therefore, do not see any substance in this appeal, which is dismissed with cost. The appellants are given two months time to vacate the premises.

M. A. K. Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.