' This is a Rent Appeal under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979.
2. The facts leading to this appeal, briefly stated, are that on 11-11-1981 the deceased respondent through his attorney filed an ejectment application under section 15 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 against the appellant on the ground of personal requirement which was allowed by the Judgment, dated 30-1-1984, passed by the learned Rent Controller in Rent Case No. 4952/81 (Mahfooz Ahmed v. A. Karim Janejo) which is impugned in this appeal.
3. I have heard Mr. Ahmadullah Farooqui, learned counsel for the respondent.
4. Mr. Ahmadullah Farooqui, in support of this appeal, has raised four contentions. Firstly that during the pendency of this appeal the respondent, Mahfooz Ahmed died leaving behind his Legal Representatives who have been brought on record as substituted respondents. The house which was required for the personal use of late Mahfooz Ahmed is no more required by him. He further submitted that respondent No. 2, Ahmed Usman son of the deceased is a co-owner and cannot require the entire house for his own occupation. Secondly, that Ahmed Usman is a resident Doctor at Dr. Ziauddin Hospital and so he does not need accommodation and thirdly, that the respondent is co-owner of other property with his brother, Mahfooz Ahmed, and fourthly, that he and his witnesses were not given any opportunity to be cross-examined by the deceased respondent.
5. The first contention has no force in fact or law. It has been clearly stated in para. 6 of the application for ejectment moved by the deceased respondent that the premises was required by him for his own use, occupation and for use and occupation of his son and other grown-up children. It has come in the evidence of Dr. Ahmed Usman son of the deceased that he was residing in a rented premises and required the premises in question for his use and occupation.
The death of the previous owner/landlord does not make any difference as the doctor son for whom the premises was mainly required still requires the same. The contention that he is a resident Doctor carries no force. Mr. Mushir Alam, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that he has been provided accommodation for his own self to attend the patients during the duty hours only and not for the family. I, therefore, repel the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the premises in question is no more required by respondent No. 2 Dr. Ahmed Usman.
6. As regards his third contention that the deceased owned another property is without any substance. There is no evidence on record to substantiate the contention. It appears that in the cross-examination of the deceased an attempt was made to show that some Houses Nos. 589 and 590 were owned by the deceased which he categorically denied that the said house did not belong to him. He further deposed in his cross-examination that the said house belonged to one Ahmed Ali who is Gujrati by caste. His son Ahmed Usman is residing in House No.
589. Mr. Ahmadullah Farooqui has, however, filed photostat copies of two receipts for the payment of rent as Annexures 'A' and 'A-1' Annexure 'A' is a receipt issued by Ahmed Khan in favour of the appellant which is dated 1-5-1977 and Annexure 'A-1' is a receipt issued in favour of one Bukhari which is dated 4-10-1970. There is an objection taken by Mr. Mushir Alam learned counsel that these receipts cannot be looked into as evidence at this stage in the absence of any application for adducing additional evidence. In any case, these receipts do not go to prove that the deceased owned another house exclusively which, cannot be a ground for refusal to ejectment of the appellant, even if they are taken into consideration.
7. The fourth contention that the appellant and his two witnesses were not given an opportunity to be cross-examined is also baseless. Looking to the Diary of the lower Court it is apparent that the opponent filed his affidavit-in-evidence as well as of his two witnesses on 24-11-1982. The case was adjourned from time to time at his request on as many as thirteen dates of hearing for their cross- examination, spread over a period of about fourteen months. The learned Rent Controller had, therefore, no option but to close his side on 4-1-1984.
8. For reasons discussed above I find no force in this appeal which is dismissed with costs.
9. Mr. Farooqui requests for some time to vacate the premises.
Sixty days' time is granted to the appellant to vacate the premises and hand over its vacant possession to the respondent, failing which he will be liable to be ejected without notice. He will, however, continue to deposit rent in Court as before.