Find a Lawyer

First Rent Appeal No.533 of 1981, decided on 22nd April 1984.

‑‑‑Ss.15 a 21‑‑Ejectment on ground of bona fide personal requirement‑ Landlady producing witnesses deposing that she was living with her husband in a rented house and this fact was not specifically denied by tenant‑‑Landlady, held, entitled to reside in her own house irrespective of size of her family and fact whether or not she was compelled by her own landlord to vacate rented house‑‑Application for ejectment allowed in circumstances.

Faizanul Haq for Appellant.

S.Mushtaq Hussain for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 22^nd April, 1984.

This is an appeal from the judgment of Rent Controller, Karachi in Rent Case No.4662 of 1979, dated 30th August 1981 whereby ejectment application filed by the appellant against the respondent was dismissed by IXth Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi.

The appellant had filed ejectment application against the respondent in respect of a house bearing No.912, situated in Block No.9, Dastagir Society, Federal 'B' Area, Karachi. The appellant gave notice to respondent that she wanted house for her bona fide requirement. As the respondent did not vacate the house, hence the ejectment application before IXth Senior Civil Judge, Karachi. In the ejectment application three grounds were urged in support of claim of ejectment namely (1) personal requirement, (2) default in payment of rent from 1‑5‑1979, to 30‑9‑1979 and (3) that the respondent has damaged the property.

So far as the allegation of default and damage of property are concerned these were not pressed. Only the issue in respect of bona fide requirement has been pressed.

Respondent in a written statement denied that the appellant requires the house for her bona fide use.

In support of her case the appellant examined her husband Hanif Ahmed Farooqui, Adeeb Mirza and Nasir Hussain Shakil. These witnesses had deposed that the appellant is living with her husband in a rented house and that she is in need of her own house.

In rebuttal respondent Muhammad Yousuf Qureshi, has filed his own affidavit. He does not know that the appellant is residing in rented house. In view of this statement it is proved that the appellant is residing in a rented house. She is, therefore, entitled to live in her own house irrespective of fact whether she is compelled or not by her own landlord to vacate her house. The fact that she is residing in a rented house has not been specifically denied by the respondent, hence irrespective of size of the family of the appellant, she has a right to reside in her own house.

The learned Rent Controller has, therefore, erred in holding that the appellant has failed to prove that she is residing in a rented house or that she has got a large family for which another house is required. When a landlord is residing in a rented house then she is B entitled to have her own house vacated irrespective of size of he family. The question as to how many members the appellant has in her, family is irrelevant for determining bona fide requirement in a case when landlord himself/herself is residing in a rented house.

The appeal is, therefore, allowed and so also the ejectmen application with costs. During arguments Mr. Mushtaq Hussain requested for six months time for the respondent to vacate the premises in question77 to which Mr. Faizanul Haq agreed. Consequently, the respondent is allowed six months time to vacate the premises. Appeal disposed of accordingly.

M. Y. H. Appeal allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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