' This second appeal is directed against the orders dated 29th July. 1979 and dated 25th January, 1981 passed by the learned IInd Rent Controller at Karachi and the learned Vth Additional District Judge at Karachi respectively, in Rent Case No, 2181/76 and Rent Appeal No, 529/79 respectively.
' The brief facts leading to the filing of the above second appeal are that the respondent landlady filed the aforesaid rent application for ejectment on the ground of personal requirement. The above application was resisted by the present appellant. However, the learned Rent Controller by his aforesaid order dated 29th July, 1979 granted the above application. The appellant being aggrieved by the above order filed the aforesaid rent appeal, which was dismissed by the aforesaid order. The appellant being aggrieved by the above two orders filed the present second appeal.
2. (a) In support of the above appeal Mr. Umrani has raised the following points :-
(i) That since the respondent had not examined herself in support of the rent application; it was fatal to the respondent's case.
(ii.) That in rent application no immediate requirement was mentioned at the time of the filing of the same on 6th March, 1976.
(iii) That prior to the filing of the rent application the respondent was able to obtain possession of a portion of the premises on the ground floor of the building and that instead of occupying the same it was rented out to Ward Rationing Office.
(c) Reverting to the first contention that the respondent having failed to examine herself in support of the application, the same should have been dismissed by the learned Rent Controller, it may be observed that reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the appellant on the case of Mohammad Younus v. Dr. S. Mozammil All (1) in which I have inter alia observed that "if the landlord without any plausible reason fails to appear as a witness before the Rent Controller in, {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) 1981 CLC 327 {{FOOT NOTE}} ' support of his application for ejectment on the ground of persodnal requirement in good faith, this will be fatal to his application." In my view in, the instant case there is a plausible reasdon for the respondent for not' coming forward as a witness in support of the application. The respondent's husband was examined as the attorney of the respondent who had personal knowledge of the requirement of the family. Furthermore, this Court can take judicial notice of the fact that normally womenfolk do not appear in Courts as witness because of the customs and orthodox thinking. They are generally represented by their hisband/sons or other close male relations. In this view of the matter the principle enunciated by me in the above-cited case has no application to the present case.
(c) With reference to the second contention, namely, on the day of the filing of the application i. e.
6th March, 1976 the respondent did not aver any immediate requirement, it may be observed that a perusal of the rent application indicates that the respondent was very express and full material facts in order to substantiate the personal requirement were disclosed inasmuch as it was pleased that the respondent had three sons who had grown since the time the premises was rented out to the appellant and that two of them were old enough to have been married but could not be married for want of the accommodation and that the third son was a medical student who needed a separate room to study. It was also stated that the respondent had been requesting the appellant from time to time and that the appellant had been making promises but failed to vacate. According to Mr. Umrani the use of the words "the same were reasonably required by the applicant for her personal use as well as for her children" indicates a past requirement and not the present requirement at the time of the filing of the rent application. In my view the above contention has no substance. The rent application is to be read as a whole, which clearly makes out a case for her personal requirement at the time of filing the same. Furthermore, it has been repeatedly held by the superior Courts that the law of pleading is not strictly applicable to rent proceedings and that an applicant is required to disclose the material/sufficient facts in order to put the other party to notice, so that he may meet the case. In the instant case the above requirement has been fully complied with.
(d) With reference to the third contention, that the respondent instead of occupying a portion of the ground floor which was vacated by one tenant rented out the same to the Ward Rationing Officer, it may be observed that no question was directed in cross-examination as to the date of the vacation of the above premises by the tenant and so also on the point as to whether the above accommodation was suitable for the personal requirement of the respondent. It is an admitted position that the above premises were let out to the Ward Rationing Officer for the purposes of Officer which fact indicates that the premises were not suited for residential purpose. In any case it was for the appellant to make out a case that the above premises were in fact suitable for the personal requirement of the respondent, but no attempt was made in that direction.
3. The concurrent finding of the two Courts below on the question of the personal requirement is in accord with the evidence on the record. In view of the above discussion the above appeal has no merit, and, therefore, the same is dismissed in limine. However, I grant 2 months' time to the appellant to hand over vacant possession to the respondent.
Appeal dispraised.