Find a Lawyer

First Rent Appeal No.889 of 1984, decided on 14th April, 1985.

---Ss.15 & 21--Landlord and tenant--Ejectment on basis of bona fide personal requirement--Plea of tenant that ejectment order had been passed on ground which was not set up in case, repelled--No contra diction pointed out in statements of witnesses on material point and sufficient material was available on recurred to establish bona fide requirement of landlord--Landlord living with relation who needed same for his own children coming back from abroad--Admission of landlord that premises in dispute was joint property was not material--Once it was established that landlord was owners of premises they were entitled to occupy same.

1983 C L C 3285; 1983 S C M k 1062; 1984 C L C.1073; 1983 C L C 122; 1984 C L C 2469 and 1980 C L C 605 ref.

Syed Ishtiaq Ali for Appellant.

Zaheerulah Ahmed Khan for Respondents

Date of hearing: 14th April, 1985.

Saeeduzzafar filed an application for eviction against the appellant Muhammad Farooq on the ground of default and that the premises in dispute are required by the appellant for his bona fide use. According to the applicant he has got three sons and four daughters, all grown up and one son t., lie married recently, The applicants cannot spare three bedrooms as such they are sleeping in drawing room and in Verandah. On the death of Saeeduzzafiar, the applicant, his legal heirs filed the amended rent application on the same grounds. The application was contested by the appellant. According to him no default was committed by him and the premises in question was not required by the applicant for their personal boner fide requirement. The following issues were framed by the learned Rent Controller;

"(1) Whether the opponent is a wilful defaulter in payment of rent

(2) Whether the applicants require the premises in good faith for their own use

(3) What should the order be

2. Athar Saeed one of the rtpldi-110 and Muhammad Asim witness for the applicant filed their affidavits and they were cross-examined by the appellant's counsel. The appellant also filed his affidavit in rebuttal. The learned Rent Controller accepted the application holding that the premises in dispute are required by the applicants for their own bona fide requirement. The ground of default was decided against.

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the ejectment order has been passed on the ground which is not set up in the case. Tire statements of the witnesses produced by the applicants are not consistent and new case has been set up. The learned counsel has therefore assailed the finding of the learned tent Controller on issue No.2 and referred to 1983 C L G 3285, 1983 SCMU 1062, 1984 C L C 1073 and 1983 C L C 122 but I do not find any substance in the contention raised by the earned counsel for tire applicant. There is no contradiction in tire statements of the witnesses on the material point.

3. It is next contended that the respondents are living in their own house where sufficient accommodation is available. They are living in a house which is jointly owned by them and only two brothers are living in the house which consists of four bedrooms. Reliance has been placed on 1984 C L C 2469 and 1980 C 1. C 605 In the same context it is contended that married daughters are living with their husbands and they need no accommodation. It is not stated by the respondent that the married daughters would live in the house.

4. I see no force in any of the contentions raised by the learned counsel. There is sufficient material on record to establish the bona fide of the applicants. Athar Saeed has filed the affidavit and he has I stated that applicants 1 to 9 wanted to live in their own house as they needed the same for their personal bona fide need. They are residing with Muhammad Muslim. When the application for eviction was filed by his father he was unmarried and now lie is married and has got one child. Three brothers and four sisters, all are grown up and they need separate accommodation. Two sisters are college-going and one is studying in school. Old mother is also living with them. Besides, his father-in-law Muhammad Muslim with whom the applicants are living needs the house in their occupation for the occupation of his own sons. It is stated in the affidavit that tire house in occupation of the appellant is more suitable for their accommodation. It consists of four bedrooms arid other accessories besides a guest room. He was cross- examined arid he had denied that the horse in which they are living was owned by his father.

Muhammad Asim has supported the case of the respondent regarding their bona fide occupation. It is stated in his affidavit that the applicants 1 to 9 are residing as lisencee with Muhammad Muslim on first floor of the house of Muhammad Muslim. It consists of four bedrooms. Muhammad Muslim has ten children, mother and wife and has congested accommodation. He has requested the applicants to vacate the house as his soils Pervez and Dr.Arif are coming back from America after completing their studies and the accommodation will be needed for them. Besides after the marriage of Athar Saeed and because his brothers and sisters have grown up and are school and college-going the accommodation at Muhammad Muslim's house is not suitable for them.

The statements of Athar Saeed aril Muhammad Asim remained unchallenged on material particulars of the case where they have specifically stated that the house in dispute is required by them for 1 their personal bona fide requirement. They have given the number of their family members. They have also shown that they are living with Muhammad Muslim who himself required the premises for his own children who are corning back from America Athar Saeed has since been married and the other members of the family are grown up. The statement) given by the witnesses clearly established the bona fide requirement of the respondents. The learned counsel has laid much emphasis on the fact that Muhammad Asim has admitted that the premises in dispute, in which they are presently living were constructed from joint accounts and they are joint property. This fact is not material because once it is established that the respondents are landlord of the premises in dispute then they are entitled under the law to occupy the same. The joint ownership of the house where they are residing is not relevant for the simple reason that they have been able to show that the premises where they are at present residing is not sufficient for their accommodation and the house in dispute is required by them for their own personal bona fide requirement.

The statements remained unchallenged the learned counsel for the appellant has stated that one brother Athar Saeed is not willing to occupy the demised premises. This statement is incorrect as in cross -examination Athar Saeed has denied the suggestion that he is not willing to occupy the demised premises.

5. The upshot of the above discussion is that the respondents have been able to show through evidence that the premises in dispute is required by them for their personal bona fide use and tire appellant has failed to point out any infirmity in the judgment impugned ill this appeal. The appeal is consequently dismissed with no order as to costs but three months' time is allowed to the appellant to hand over the possession of the premises in dispute.

A. A. 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.