1. MUNIB AHMED KHAN, J.--- Through this constitutional petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of the Additional District Judge, dated 20-4-2000 in F.R.A. No.277 of 2001 as well as the order of Rent Controller dated 22-4-2000. passed in Rent Application No.180 of 1997.
2. The contention of the petitioner is that the personal need of the applicant disappeared after the death of the landlady and secondly when an application for amendment was made by the legal heirs but same was dismissed. He has also pointed out that personal need was changed as a notice under section 14 of the Sindh Rent Premises Ordinance was given during pendency of the rent application, therefore, there is tilt in the nature of requirement. He has further submitted that four persons submitted their affidavit in evidence but only two Muhammad Ilyas and Muhammad Yakoob were cross-examined while Mst. Jannat Bibi, the landlady, had expired and another son Muhammad Iqbal did not submit himself for cross-examination. He has further contended that proper issues were not framed by the Rent Controller, therefore, case may be remanded on the ground of non-appearance of the witnesses for cross-examination. He has cited PLD 2004 SC 489(c), 1990 CLC 103 and 1993 M LD 1217.
3. On the plea that the issues were not framed, learned counsel for the petitioner has cited 1990 MLD 3088 and that when there is misreading of the evidence then constitutional petition is maintainable and on that he has cited 2001 SCM R 338 and 1988 SCM R 193. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the case may be remanded for framing of proper issues so retrial may be conducted.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Rafique Ahmed, counsel for the respondents, has pointed out that the case was filed by the landlady and the requirement has been given in para.6 of the rent application which is as follows:-- "6. That the applicant has 3 sons namely Muhammad Yakoob, Muhammad Ilyas, Muhammad Iqbal and 10 daughters who are all married except Muhammad Ilyas, Muhammad Yakoob has several children. Iqbal has got two wives and he has 9 children and the third son Muhammad Ilyas is 26 years old and is to be married."
5. He has submitted that dismissal of the application for amendment after the death of the landlady does not affect the case as the basic requirement, which was given in the ejectment application, remained the same. He has further pointed out that witnesses have been cross-examined and these two witnesses were sufficient and even if the person who died during pendency or did not appear may be excluded from consideration even then the evidence on record shows that the premises was required for personal need of the sons of the respondent and that the petitioner has been in possession of the rented premises for the last about two decades and now he should vacate for personal requirement.
6. After hearing the arguments, I have observed from the case that the need has been given by the landlady as stated above in para.6 of the rent application and after the death, the application is not affected irrespective of dismissal of amendment application as the ejectment was sought on the ground of children and on their need two of the children Ilyas and Yakoob have been, cross- examined. Both the learned two Courts below have taken the evidence for consideration and their findings are proper.
7. Learned Additional District Judge in his judgment has given reasons in respect to personal need which are as follows:-- "The applicant to prove the ground assailed in application was required to produce sufficient evidence that the requirement for the demised premises was in good faith and it was not mere her wish. To prove the case, had examined herself, her son Muhammad Ilyas and Muhammad Iqbal so also Muhammad Yakoob. Applicant fully supported the contents of application that she requires the demised premises for her children. She has further clarified that her one son Ilyas is unmarried whom she wants to marry while other son Yakoob has seven children and third son Iqbal has two wives nine children. It has come in evidence that landlady respondent was only in occupation of first floor of the bungalow which consist of four bedrooms. Mother/ landlady with her grownup married sons having large number of grown children could hardly stay in four rooms premises. All the three sons of applicant in their affidavit-in-evidence have clearly deposed and supported the version of applicant/ landlady."
8. It shows that the respondent is maintaining a large family and were residing in upper floor, therefore, it was very natural for her and her legal heirs to occupy the ground floor and the application in this respect has rightly been considered and ejectment is proper.
9. In the circumstances, this petition has no force and is dismissed with costs along with listed application.