' This is second appeal under section 27 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 from the Order of learned IInd Additional District Judge, Karachi in 1st Rent Appeal No, 370/1979, dated 11th October, 1980, whereby he had upheld the ejectment order passed by the learned Rent Controller against the appellant in a rent case filed by respondent Azhar Iqbal under the provisions of West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959.
2. The respondent is admittedly owner and landlord of the premises in question which is a godown on plot No, 11-A, Shershah Colony, Karachi. This was rented out by the respondent to the appellant at Rs, 275 per month by a rent agreement which was executed by Faizullah son of Hashimbhoy as a partner of the firm named M/s. Orient Produce Export Syndicate, 28 West Wharf, Karachi. The respondent filed ejectment application on the ground that the appellant committed four months default from August, 1975 to November, 1975 and that the respondent requires the premises for his personal use.
3. The appellant resisted the claim of the respondent on the plea that no deault was committed and that the respondent does not require the shop/godown for his personal use. On these pleadings following issues were framed by the learned trial J udge:-
(1) Whether the opponent has committed default in payment of rent to the applicant?
(2) Whether the applicant requires the premises in application in good faith for his own personal use?
' After recording evidence of the parties the learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the appellant was a defaulter and that the respondent required the premises for his bona fide use. In view of these findings the ejectment application was allowed and the appellant was directed to vacate the premises within one month.
4. The appellant filed appeal before the learned Addl. District Judge, Karachi, who agreed with the findings of the learned Rent Controller in both the issues and dismissed the appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised several pleas in support of the appeal. It has been urged that only four months default was committed in arrears of rent, but it was through inadvertence and that immediately thereafter he sent 2 money orders to the respondent but the same were refused. The respondent examined his father Mohammad Siddiq in evidence.
Mohammad Siddiq is also attorney of his son Azhar Iqbal, the respondent. Mohammad Siddiq admitted that the two money orders were received but they were refused because by that time he had already filed the present ejectment application. It would, therefore appear that so far as the default in payment of four months rent is concerned, it is admitted by the appellant.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant had never before committed default in payment of rent during the entire period of his tenancy which commenced from 6th January, 1972. It was, therefore, urged that the four months default preceding the filing of the ejectment application should not have been taken as wilful default on the part of the appellant and that this was a case in which the Rent Controller and the First Appellate Court should have exercised discretion. In favour of the tenant in view of the provisions of section 13(2) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance.
7. The two Courts below have come to a positive finding that the appellant had been a defaulter.
On this finding they have chosen to exercise discretion in favour of the landlord. It will not be proper in IInd Appeal to interfere with the discretionary orders of the Courts below unless it is shown that the discretion was exercised arbitrarily or in violation of any principle of justice or equity.
Concurrent findings of the lower courts on points of fact are not to be interfered with in IInd Appeal unless their is some compelling reason to satisfy the court in IInd Appeal that the findings are perverse or are based on misreading of evidence or that the discretion was used arbitrarily. No such case has been made out by the learned counsel for the appellant.
8. The next plea urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the respondent who is the landlord has not examined himself as a witness in this case. On the contrary he has chosen to produce his father Mohammad Siddiq as a witness. It may be observed that Mohammad Siddiq is also attorney of his son Azhar Iqbal. He has deposed that his son Azhar Iqbal requires these premises for his personal bona fide use for the purpose of installation of a Power Loom for manufacturing cloth. This categorical assertion of Mohammad Siddiq in examination in chief has not been challenged by the appellant in cross-examination. Even the appellant's witness Mirza Mohammad Hussain in his evidence (Exh. 6) has not challenged the statement of Mohammad Siddiq that the premises are required by the landlord.
9. So far as non-production of the respondent himself as a witness in this case is concerned, reference may be made to the case of Zahooruddin v. Mirza Ayub Baig (1). It has been held in this case that if the father of the landlord states that the premises are required for the bona fide use of his son, then the omission of the landlord to mention this fact in ejectment application shall not be fatal. Although this decision of the Supreme Court relates to different facts but it implies that non- examination in evidence of the person for whose use the premises are required is not fatal to the case of the landlord. The requirement of law is that from the evidence produced before the Rent Controller, he should be satisfied that the requirement of the landlord is bona fide and genuine.
Both the Courts below, have categorically found that this claim of the landlord was proved on the basis of the evidence of Mohammad Siddiq, the father and attorney of the landlord. I have no reason to take any exception to the concurrent findings of the two Courts below on this point.
10. A technical objection has been taken by the learned counsel for the appellant that the ejectment application has not been filed against the proper man. The rent agreement was executed by one Faizullah as partner of Messrs Orient Produce Export Syndicate and the ejectment application has been filed against Messrs Orient Produce Export ,Syndicate, West Wharf, Karachi. It may be stated that Mirza Mohammad Hashim appeared as a witness on behalf of the above firm and claimed that his brother Faizullah has died and that presently he himself is the sole proprietor of this firm. From the rent agreement it is quite clear that the permises {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) 1981 SCM R 1081 {{FOOT NOTE}} were rented out to the firm, hence the firm was rightly impleaded as opponent in the rent application. For the above reasons I hold that the plea of the Landlord regarding default in payment of rent by the appellant and the bona fide requirement of the landlord of the premises have been fully proved. In view of the concurrent findings of the two Courts below on these points I do not find any justification to interfere with their orders.
' In the result the appeal is dismissed with costs. The appellant is, however, granted three months time to vacate the premises.