' This is an appeal against the order dated 21-3-1982 passed by the learned XVJIth Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi, in rent Application No, 4207/79.
' The relevant facts leading to the filing of the above appeal are that the respondent who is landlady of shop No, 36 "B" Road Liaquatabad, Karachi, filed the above rent application for ejectment on two grounds, namely, for causing damage to the shop and thereby impairing the value and utility of the shop and also on the ground of personal requirement of her three sons, namely, Muhammad Sharif, Muhammad Kafeel and Muhammad Hasnain. The above application was resisted by the appellant. The learned Rent Controller on the basis of the pleadings framed the following three issues :-
(1) Whether the opponents impaired the utility and value of disputed shop by removing in between wall of disputed shop and shop No, 37 ?
(2) Whether the disputed shop is required for the use and occupation of the applicant's son ?
(3) What should the order be" ?
' The respondent in support of the rent application examined one of her son, Nafees as her attorney and also one of the three sons for whose benefit the respondent sought ejectment, namely, Muhammad Sharif. On the other hand the appellants examined Sardar Khan one of the appellants and one Wali Jan. The learned Rent Controller after hearing the parties allowed the above rent application on the ground of personal requirement but rejected the other ground. The appellants being aggrieved by the above order have filed the present appeal.
2. In support of the above appeal Mr. Abbas Zia learned counsel for the appellant has urged that there is no evidence on record to prove what type of business the other two sons namely, Kafeel and Hasnain would carry in the shop in question and, therefore, the personal requirement of the three sons was not proved in accordance with law. In support of the above contention he has relied upon the case of Barkat Ali v. Sughra and others (1). On the other hand Mr. Imran Ahmed learned counsel for the respondent has contended that in para. 4 of the affidavit of Muhammad Sharif, the personal requirement of the three sons was mentioned and according to him the same stands proved and the learned Rent Controller was justified in granting the above application.
3. It may be advantageous to reproduce hereinbelow para. 4 of the affidavit of Muhammad Sharif, which reads as follows :- "(4) That the applicant has a large family consisting of seven male members out of them three are jobless and I am one of them. My real brothers namely Muhammad Kafeel and Muhammad Hasnain are of marriageable ages and they are jobless. I am a married and I also have no source of income, no other shop or any other business in order to livelihood. I will use the said shop for my personal commercial requirement by doing the work of tailoring but due to inavailability of the shop or premises for running the aforesaid job I and my other two brothers have been facing great tremendous hardships in meeting the ends of life."
' It may be observed that in the above para it has been averred that the respondent has large family consisting of seven male members, out of them three are jobless. It has also been averred that Muhammad Sharif knows the tailoring work and was doing the said work on wages. However, nothing has been said about the two other brothers as to the nature of work they know or what they intend to do. It has been submitted by Mr. Imran that these two brothers would also sit with Muhammad Shar' and would do the tailoring work. There is nothing on record to support the above submission. In my view, it was incumbent on the respondent to indicate what the three sons intend to do in the above shop, particularly, when it has come on record that one of the sons was doing goldsmith business in another shop owned by the respondent's family and another son was doing furniture business in another shop owned by the respondent's family.
4. It has also been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that respondent's family also owns third shop but there is nothing on record of the Rent Controller to substantiate this submission. The appellants have filed an application for production of P T Form I in this appeal as additional evidence in support of the above contention. However, this factum has been denied by the learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent's family owns any third shop.
5. It was also urged by Mr. Abbas Zia that all the three brothers should have been examined in order to prove their personal requirement. In my view, it is not necessary that in all cases all the persons for whose benefit the premises are required should be put into witness-box. If the evidence of one of such persons is reliable and inspires confidence, the factum of non-examination of the other persons may not be fatal if the Court is satisfied that the personal joint requirement stands proved.
6. Since there is nothing on the record to prove what type of business the other two bothers namely Kafeel and Hasnain intend to do. I would remand the case to the learned Rent Controller with the direction to allow the parties to lead further evidence on the above aspect and to decide the application afresh after hearing the parties within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Appeal stands allowed in the above terms with no order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.