' MUHAMMAD MOOSA KHAN LEGHARI, J.---The petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11-6-2007 of High Court of Sindh delivered in Constitutional Petition No,460 of 2002.
By the aforesaid judgment the Constitutional Petition filed by the respondent arising out of rent proceedings was allowed and the case was remanded to the Rent Controller for deciding the same afresh, after recording additional evidence.
2. The facts of the case, in short are, that the petitioners/landlords filed a rent case against the respondents/tenants for ejectment on the grounds of impairing the value and utility of the premises, personal bona tide need and wilful default in payment of rent. However, the ejectment was, allowed only on the ground of personal bona tide use as the. Other grounds were not proved.
After dismissal of the appeal filed by the respondents/tenants, they challenged the judgments of the lower courts before the High Court in constitutional petition. The judgment of the High Court, whereby the petition of the respondents/tenants was accepted to the extent that the case was remanded to the Rent Controller for fresh decision has been assailed through the, present petition.
3. We have heard Mian Mushtaq Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners and Syed Shariffuddin Pirzada, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for the respondents and have perused the record as well.
4. Mian Mushtaq Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner contends that the assertion of the respondent was tainted. With malice and that the submissions made in the application were categorically denied by the-respondents. Learned counsel argued that the petitioners have proved their bona fides regarding the personal requirement, and that it was the sole discretion of the landlord to choose and decide his requirement. He submitted that the order of remand was against law.
5. As against that Syed Sharifuddin Pirzadar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court contended that the plea of personal need was mala fide, and that the same was marred by the principle of constructive res judicata. Both the learned counsel supported their different pleas by citing certain rulings of this Court.
6. It appears that previously also the petitioners filed rent case for ejectment of the respondents/tenants on the ground of default, nuisance, need of the premises for bona fide use etc. The Rent Controller allowed the ejectment application on the ground of default in payment of rent. FRA filed by the respondent was dismissed, however, Civil Appeal No,807-K of 1990 filed by the respondent was allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 28-11-1992 and the judgments of the courts below were set aside. Consequently ejectment application filed by the petitioner/landlord was dismissed. A petition seeking the review of the above judgment was also dismissed by this court vide order dated 21-11-1993.
In January, 1994 the petitioners again filed application for ejectment almost on the same grounds.
The impugned judgment of the High Court reflects that an application was moved before the High Court by the respondents alleging therein that two shops which were got vacated from the previous tenans during the pendency of rent proceedings, were rented out by the petitioners to the new tenants.
7. Learned High Court, in order to resolve the above controversy has observed as under:-- "Thus, the respondents have to show, in case the said contentions of the petitioners are, correct, as to why the demand of the business sought to be established by respondent No,3(a) could not have been met with satisfactorily For such a reason the further evidence essentially needs to be recorded. This constitutional petition is hereby accepted; impugned judgment/order passed by the two courts below are set aside and the rent case remanded to the Rent Controller with direction that further evidence of both the parties be recorded on the said point within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order and then to hear .The parties afresh and to decide the ejectment application according to law."
' A careful perusal of the above observations would adequately reveal that the High Court-was justified in referring the controversy to the Rent Controller by remanding the case. Above judgment was delivered on .11-6-2007 and the Rent Controller was directed to pass a fresh judgment within two months. The Order appears to be just, proper and legally valid, which is meant to advance the cause of justice.
8. In the circumstance, there is no occasion to interfere with the impugned judgment which is upheld, The petition being without merits is dismissed and leave to appeal refused.