' M. S. H. QURAISHI, J.-The petitioner-company is aggrieved by the order of the High Court dated 1-2- 1984 dismissing its second appeal in a rent matter where the application for ejectment of the petitioner, though dismissed by the Rent Controller, had been allowed and the ejectment of the petitioner directed by the appellate Court.
2. The tenancy was in respect of property comprising a godown, a garage, office hall and two residential flats, which had been let out to the petitioner in 1957 at Rs, 365 per month which had later been increased to Rs, 1,000 per month. The ejectment was sought on the ground of the respondent landlord's requirement for personal use. The landlord's case was that he had extensive timber business but as the Provincial Government had taken over the business in its own control, he had to close down his business at Dargai and wanted to start it at Peshawar where he resided, and for that purpose he required the premises. The Controller came to the view that the landlord did not require the premises for his personal use but had instituted the proceedings in order to force the petitioner to increase the rent and, therefore, dismissed the application as being mala fide. The appellate Court disagreed with this view and holding that even if the letter exchanged between the parties included a demand for higher rent, the same would not debar the landlord from seeking ejectment of the tenant for his personal use. On the basis of the evidence produced, the appellate Court felt satisfied that the landlord wanted to start his business at Peshawar and accordingly directed the petitioner's ejectment.
3. In the second appeal it was brought to the notice of the High Court that the petitioner had since shifted its office and business from Peshawar to Rawalpindi. In order to ascertain the true facts, the High Court summoned and examined the petitioner's authorised agent who confirmed that the petitioner had shifted its office to Rawalpindi, had stored some articles in the godown portion and had allowed its retired Zonal Manager to occupy the residential portion free of charge. The authorised agent was not cross-examined by the petitioner's counsel in spite of opportunity having been given. The High Court considering the effect of the statement made by the authorised agent and also being satisfied as to the landlord's need, dismissed the petitioner's second appeal by the impugned order.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner before us questioned the propriety and the relevancy of the additional evidence recorded by the High Court. But the objection, if any, ought to have been taken before the High Court. There is nothing to show that the same had been done. The autborised agent had not even been cross-examined by the petitioner' counsel. In any case, the High Court had not relied for its order entirely on the statement of the authorised agent. It had independently considered the need of the landlord in the light of the contentions raised by the petitioner that the real purpose of the ejectment proceeding was enhancement of the rent, that the landlord had been renting out other portions and that the premises in question was not suitable for timber business as such business was centralised at Dabgari area in Peshawar. The High Court rejected the contentions and came to the view that "Instantly the landlord and hi accountant have made assertions about personal requirement on oath duly consistent with the averments in the petition and also not shaken in the cross-examination".
5. It is clear that the controversy, in the circumstances of the case, was one of fact. The evidence led by the parties in that regard had been duly considered by the High Court. No case is, therefore, made out for interference. The petition is dismissed.