1. S. A. NUSRAT, J.-This petition has been brought to seek leave to appeal against the judgment dated 24-2-1982 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Sind dismissing petitioner's First Rent Appeal in the back--ground of the; following facts:- The petitioner has been a tenant on the ground floor of a building situate on Plot No. R. B. 6/12, Arambagh Quarters, Karachi, since long and paid rent to the Government of Pakistan through the Controller of Estate Duty, Karachi, until the same was transferred to the respondent in July, 1976. The intimation with regard to such change of ownership was conveyed to the, petitioner by the Deputy Controller of Estate Duty by a letter dated 10-7-1976. The petitioner having been so informed admittedly paid rent to the respondent from July, 1976, to May, 1977. The respondent filed an application under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, for the ejectment of the petitioner in 1978 on the ground of default in payment of rent as from June, 1977, and personal and bona f Vide requirement of the premises for her son. The application was allowed by the learned Civil Judge and Rent Controller on both the grounds on 28-7-1980 whereupon the petitioner filed appeal before the High Court which was dismissed as per impugned judgment and the findings of the learned Rent Controller were confirmed.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since a notice as required under section 13-A of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance was not served upon the petitioner the question of default could not be gone into at all. This contention was repelled by the learned High Court on the strength of the decision of this Court in the case of Khuda Bakhsh v. Muhammad Yaqoob etc. (1981SCM 8179), wherein it has been held that the reason for giving notice under section 13-A was to inform the tenant about the change of ownership of the property so that rent could thereafter be paid by the tenant to the new landlord.
3. 1n the instant case, the petitioner had accepted the fact regarding the transfer of the property to the respondent consequent upon the receipt of notice from the Deputy Controller of Estate Duty and had also paid rent for several months to the respondent. He, therefore, cannot make any grievance that a notice as required under section 13-A of the Ordinance was not served upon him.
4. The learned counsel referred to another decision of this Court in the case of Sabu Mal v. Kika Ram alias Heman Das (1973SCMR185), and contended that a contrary view was expressed in that case which, however, is not borne out from the judgment. In that case, the High Court had upheld the concurrent findings of the two Courts below regarding the personal need of landlord observing that the non-service of notice by the transferee-landlord in terms of section 13-A of the Ordinance had no effect on the maintainability of the ejectment application on grounds other than that of default in payment of, rent. This judgment, on the contrary, goes against the petitioner because a further ground of personal bona fide requirement had also been taken in the application. It was next contended that the evidence on the point of personal bona fide requirement of the respondent was not correctlyappreciated by the learned two Courts below. This issue stands concluded by concurrent findings of fact which is based on the evidence brought on the record and it is not for us to re-appraise the evidence all over again.
5. This petition, in the circumstances, has no merits and is dismissed accordingly.