' The appellant is a tenant of the respondent in respect of a shop No, 452 situated at Sindhuri Road in the urban area of City of Mirpurkhas. Rent Case No, 37 of 1978 was filed by the respondent/landlord for ejectment of the appellant from the shop in question on the ground mentioned in paragraph (4) of the ejectment application, which is to the effect that the respondent required the said shop in good faith for his own use for business purposes. The ejectment application was filed on 12th July, 1978. Paragraphs (5) and (6) of the same are reproduced as under :- "5. That the petitioner (respondent) is not occupying in the same urban area, in which the subject shop premises is situated, for the purposes of his business, any other shop-premises suitable for his needs at the time.
6. That the petitioner has not vacated, after the commencement of the Rent Restriction Ordinance VI of 1959 without sufficient cause, any other non-residential building/shop in the same urban area in which the subject shop premises is situated."
' The ejcetment application was opposed by the appellant. On behalf of the respondent, apart from the respondent himself, one friend of respondent by the name of Sarwat Hussain gave evidence.
The tenant gave evidence and one Mir Muhammad, a neighbour, also appeared as a witness on behalf of the tenant. By order, dated 31st March, 1981 the ejectment application was allowed on the ground of personal requirement. The appellant being aggrieved, has come in this first rent appeal before this Court. I have heard Mr. Jhamat Jethanand, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Ahsan Hussain Alvi, Advocate for the respondent.
2. After the evidence of the respondent had been completed, the appellant/tenant gave evidence and produced a certified copy of the registered gift deed, dated 1st October, 1977 in respect of Shop No, 683 Ward B, situated in Shahi Bazar, Mirpurkhas. Through this gift deed executed on 1st October, 1977 that is about ten months earlier to the filing of the ejectment application, the respondent made a gift of Shop No, 683 in Shahi Bazar, Mirpurkhas, in favour of his wife, Mst. Aisha. In the gift deed it is mentioned that the possession of Shop No, 683 has been handed over by the respondent to his wife, which possession was accepted by the wife. This gift deed is not denied by the respondent. In fact, learned counsel for the respondent stated that it is an admitted position that Shop No, 683 in Shahi Bazar, Mirpurkhas, belonging to the respondent, had been gifted by him to his wife in October, 1977. From a perusal of the ejectment application and the evidence of the respondent it is found that no mention has been made about this Shop No, 683, which is a shop located in the same urban area of Mirpurkhas as Shop No, 452, Sindhri Road, Mirpurkhas, subject- matter of the dispute between the parties. It appears that the appellant was able to get some information about this other Shop No, 683 and after obtaining a certified copy from the Registrar's Office, be produced the same in evidence before the rent Controller.
3. It is conceded by both the learned counsel that as the ejectment application had been filed in 1978 the relevant provisions of the 1959, Rent Ordinance would be applicable. Section 13(3)(a)(ii) provides that a landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of a non-residential building if :-
(a) he requires it in good faith for his own use or for the use of any of his children;
(b) he or his said child is not occupying in the same urban area in which such building is situated for his purpose of his business any other such building suitable for the needs at the time ; and
(c) he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause after the commencement of this Ordinance (the 1959 Rent Ordinance) in the said urban area.
' It is an admitted position that prior to making of the gift of the other Shop No, 683 in favour of his wife, the respondent was the owner of two shops in the same urban area of city of Mirpurkhas namely Shop No, 452 on rent with the appellant and Shop No, 683 in possession of the respondent.
He vacated the other Shop No, 683 when he made the gift to his wife. This vacation of other Shop No, 683 was, therefore, after the commencement of the 1959 Rent Ordinance. In my view, it was mandatory for the respondent to have disclosed the fact of the ownership of Shop No, 683 and the fact that its possession was handed over in 1977 to his wife in the ejectment application or at least in his examination-in-chief and it should also have been established that he had not vacated Shop No, 683 without sufficient cause. It is apparent that this fact of the ownership of other Shop No, 683 and its gift and handing over of its possession to his wife in 1977 had been withheld by the respondent and it was only when the appellant was able to get a certified copy of the gift deed and its production by him that this fact came to light and the notice of the Rent Controller.
' It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that because the gift had been made in 1977, the possession of the Shop No, 683 had also to be handed over to the wife and that after the wife had taken over possession in October, 1977, she started her separate business with her nephew. It has been noticed that the business being carried on by the respondent is manufacture of bangles and the same business is alleged to have been started by the wife of the respondent in partnership with her nephew. In the examination-in-chief of the appellant (in the form of affidavit) it was stated specifically that the gift of the Shop No, 683 in Shahi Bazar, Mirpurkhas, had been made by the respondent in favour of his wife with mala fide intentions to create a ground for filing a case for ejectment of the appellant from Shop No, 452. There was no cross-examination of the appellant on this point.
In my view, the respondent had not made out a case for ejectment of the appellant from the shop in question, as conditions required to be fulfilled under section 13(3)(a)(ii) of the 1959 Rent Ordinance had not been fulfilled. First of all respondent should have stated in his ejectment application or at least in his examination in-chief that he owned another shop in the same urban area and that the same had been gifted to his wife and possession had been handed over to her in 1977. The evidence on record shows that the respondent had made attempts to withhold this relevant information from the Rent Controller. Then evidence should have been given to explain why it was necessary to start a separate business of the bangles by his wife when the respondent himself was dealing in the bangle business and prior to the gift in 1977, the respondent was carrying on business in the other shop. As this has not been done, the respondent did not prove that he had not vacated Shop No, 683 without sufficient cause after the commencement of the 1959 Rent Ordinance.
3. As a result this appeal succeeds. First Rent Appeal No, 281 of 1981 is allowed and the order, dated 31st March, 1981 of the Rent Controller, Tharparkar at Mirpurkhas, allowing Rent Application No, 37 of 1978 is set aside. There will be no order as to costs.