1987 PLP 484 (MLD)

This appeal under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, is filed by the appellant /landlord against the order of the Refit Controller, dated 1-4-1984, whereby he rejected the application of the appellants instituted against the respondents on grounds of personal and bona fide requirement and sub-letting. In the application as well as in the evidence, the personal and bona fide requirement of appellant No.4 was pleaded who is also one of the owners /landlords of .the building. The Rent Controller found both the issues against the appellants and dismissed the ejectment application. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the reasoning on which the learned Rent Controller disbelieved the personal and bona fide requirement of appellants is wholly misconceived and based on incorrect view of law. The learned Rent Controller while rejecting the application of appellants on the ground of personal and bona fide requirement observed as follows:- "The' applicants in support of personal need of the premises in cases have not produced any documentary or independent evidence showing that what business he intended to start. It will not be justified to order eviction of the opponent on the interested evidence of two brothers. It is a settled law that mere wish and desire is not sufficient ground to get the premises vacated on personal ground." From the above observation of learned Rent Controller it is quite clear that -he rejected the evidence of appellants in support of the plea of personal and bona fide requirement mainly on the ground that they were interested witnesses. The building is owned jointly by the appellants and in the ejectment case it was pleaded that it was required by the appellants for use and occupation of appellant No.4. The evidence of appellant No.4 was, therefore, one of the most relevant piece of evidence in the case of personal and bona fide requirement. The fact whether the evidence of appellant No.4 and the other appellant was sufficient to prove bona fide requirement of appellant No.4, is quite different from discarding their evidence on the ground that they were interested witness. I have not been able to appreciate the observation of learned Rent Controller that the evidence of appellants being that of interested persons cannot be relied upon for granting ejectment on the ground of personal and bona fide requirement. The learned counsel for the respondent however, supported the order of Rent Controller on the ground that another premises in the same building had fallen vacant during the pendency of the ejectment case which could be conveniently utilized by appellant No.4. It is also contended by the learned counsel that statement of appellants regarding the personal and bona fide requirement oil appellant No.4 is vague and did not spell out necessary particulars to establish the bona fide requirements of appellant No.4. These aspects of the case were never examined by the Rent Controller and specially the grounds urged in this appeal that one of the premises had fallen vacant during the pendency of the case which could be utilized by appellant No.4 was not at all brought to the notice of the Rent Controller. It will therefore, be only appropriate to send back the case to Rent Controller to allow opportunity to both the parties to lead further evidence in the case on the above issue. As the case is being remanded, I further leave it open to the appellants to reagitate both the issues before the Rent Controller and if the parties so desired, the Controller may allow them to lead further evidence on both the issues. The Rent Controller will re-determine the issues involved in the case in the light of such evidence as may be led before him by the parties. The order of Rent Controller is accordingly set aside and case is remanded back. There will be no order as to costs. M.Y.H./Z-13/K Case remanded