Find a Lawyer

First Rent Appeal No. 828 of 1984, decided on 15th March, 1987.

---Ss. 15(2)(vii) & 21(1)--Ejectment of tenant--Personal bona fide need--Proof--Landlady residing in rented premises which admittedly was insufficient to meet requirement of landlady and her large family- Evidence on record undisputedly showing that portion of disputed premises available with landlady was also insufficient for her and her family--Entitlement of landlady to claim additional accommodation having been proved, Rent Controller, held, rightly concluded that landlady had made out case for bona fide personal requirement under S.15(2)(vii), especially in absence of misreading of evidence.

--S.15-A--Re-letting of premises by landlord which was got vacated for bona fide use--Penalty--Penalty provided under S.15-A, held, was a good deterrent for landlord who after getting premises vacated for his personal bona fide use, re-lets same or puts it to use other than that of personal use.

Syed Inayat Ali for Appellant.

Abdul Sattar Memon for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 7th December, 1986.

This First Rent Appeal is directed against the order, dated 18-7-1984 passed by the VIth Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Karachi, whereby the eviction application was allowed and the appellant was directed to hand over vacant possession of the premises in dispute to the respondent within two months from the date of the order.

The facts leading to the filing of the above appeal are that the respondent is the owner and landlady of building on plot No. 1683/3 Federal 'B' Area, Karachi and the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants was tenant in respect of ground floor of the said premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 500. The respondent filed eviction application No. 664 of 1982 against the said tenant Moosa Bhai on the grounds of personal requirement and default in payment of rent. The said Moosa Bhai resisted the eviction application. He denied that the respondent required the premises bona fide for her occupation. He also denied that he committed default in payment of rent.

The respondent filed her own affidavit-in-evidence besides the affidavits-in-evidence of her sons Naseem Ahmed and Arif in support of the eviction application. In rebuttal the said Moosa Bhai filed affidavit-in-evidence of his son and attorney Feroze Ali. They were cross-examined by the learned counsel for the respective parties.

The learned Controller after taking into consideration the evidence adduced by the parties and taking into consideration the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties allowed the eviction application only on the ground of personal requirement vide order dated 18-7-1984.

The said Moosa Bhai died during the pendency of the eviction application as such the present appellants filed this present Rent Appeal on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal.

Mr. Syed Inayat Ali the learned counsel for the appellants has raised the following contentions:-

(1) That the Controller has mis-read the evidence.

(2) The learned Controller's approach to and treatment of the case and discussion and analysis a the evidence on record is arbitrary.

On the other hand Mr. Abdul Sattar Memon, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the eviction order is in accordance with the evidence on record and the discussion and analysis of the evidence is not arbitrary as contended by the learned counsel for the appellants.

It is an admitted position that the premises on plot No. 1683, Federal 'B' Area, consists of two floors, that is, ground floor and the first floor. It is also an admitted position that the ground floor consists of three rooms while the first floor consists of two flats and each flat consists of two rooms. The first floor is in possession of the respondent. It is the case of the respondent that she is residing in a rented premises in flat No. 12 first floor Amina Manzil which consists of three rooms. It is the further case of the respondent that the rented premises in her occupation had become insufficient for the respondent and her family.

The respondent's family consists of three sons, one daughter. Out of three sons, one was in America. Naseem Ahmed was married on 10-9-1981. Arif another son was engaged but not married. Seema is a daughter getting education. The first floor consists of two flats of two rooms each with the amenities, that is, one bed room and one drawing room with amenities in each flat. It is not denied by the learned counsel for the appellant that total accommodation with the respondent is two bed rooms, two drawing rooms with amenities on the first floor. This accommodation cannot be described as sufficient for a family of seven members, specially one of them is already got married and one son is going to be married and one daughter Seema is getting education.

The other aspect of the case is that the requirement is based on the fact that the respondent is presently occupying a rented premises and she wants to reside in her own house. her requirement should be considered to be bona fide.

I have also gone through the pleadings and the evidence recorded in the case and found that the personal requirement was pressed for accommodating herself, her husband, her married son Naseem Ahmed, other son Arif who is going to be married and her daughter Seema who is a student and the accommodation available on the first floor was insufficient. The respondent and her husband need one bed room, the respondent's son Naseem Ahmed. his wife and one daughter needs one bed room. The other son Arif got engaged and getting married, he needs one bed room. One bed room is required for the daughter Seema. It appears from the record that it was contended by the respondent /landlady that the premises available on the first floor of the premises in dispute are not sufficient for her. It is an admitted position that the premises which are in possession of the landlady are not used by her occupation. It is contender by Mr. Memon appearing for the landlady that in these circumstances she is entitled to claim possession of the premises in dispute. In the instant case the landlady claims additional accommodation and she proved her requirement for additional accommodation. In this view of the matter the Rent Controller was right in coming to the conclusion that the respondent had made out a case under section 15(2)(ii) of the Ordinance. I have not been able to discover any mis-reading in the evidence. In the present case there was evidence of the respondent and. her son that the respondent is residing in a rented premises. According to him there are seven members living with her in a rented premises which has accommodation of only three rooms and the first floor consists of two bed rooms two drawing rooms with amenities, which is barely sufficient as shelter.

It is an admitted fact that the respondent is residing in the rented premises which was considered not to be suitable to accommodate her. It has however been contended on behalf of the appellant that the aforesaid accommodation is sufficient for her needs and the accommodation available on the first floor is sufficient for her needs and therefore, it is further argued that the claim for personal requirement is not bona fide. It is however by now well settled that the reference to occupying another residential building for her needs does not apply to rented premises. It may also be pointed out that section 15-A of the Ordinance provides enough protection to the tenant in cases where the landlady/ landlord who has obtained the possession of the premises under clause 7 of subsection (2) of Section 15-A of the Ordinance on the plea that she/he requires the premises in good faith for her own occupation and use or for the occupation and use of her/his spouse or any of her/his children, re-lets the premises to any person other than the previous tenant or puts it to use other than personal use within one year of the possession. The penalty under section 15-A is a good deterrent for the landlord/landlady getting the premises vacated otherwise than for the bona fide use.

In this view of things, I find no reason to disagree with the final conclusion arrived at by the learned Controller.

The appeal, therefore, fails and the same is dismissed with no order as, to costs. The appellant is however, directed to hand over vacant possession of the premises in question within a period of three months from this judgment.

H. B. T./M-128/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.