' This is a first rent appeal filed by the landlord-appellant. Rent Case No. 327 of 1979 was filed on 28- 5-1979 by the appellant for the ejectment of the respondent/tenant on the ground of default for April, 1970, and for personal requirement. On behalf of the appellant two persons gave evidence that is the appellant himself and one Soofi Azizuddin. The tenant examined himself. By the impugned order, dated 25-8-1980, the learned Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment application. The appellant has filed this appeal under section 21 of the 1979 Rent Ordinance. I have heard Mr. Hakim Ali Siddiyui, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Raja Khan, learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of the respondent.
2. This appeal on the point of default is not pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant. As regards the case of personal requirement, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that on the basis of the evidence on record a case of personal requirement for his son had been established by the appellant. It is an admitted position that on the plot in question there are two godowns/shops, out of which one is in possession of the appellant and the other is in possession of the respondent as tenant. In the ejectment application the appellant had stated that he wants the godown/shop in occupation of the respondent for his son who has completed his education and has no source of income and intends to do business in the said godown/shop. The fact that there was an other shop/godown in possession of the appellant was not disclosed in the ejectment application. This was also not disclosed in the affidavit-in-evidence of the appellant. It is only during the cross-examination of the appellant that this fact came on record that the appellant is in possession of another shop/godown. In the evidence it has not been stated at all that the shop in possession of the appellant is being used or utilized by the appellant for his own business or that the shop in his occupation will not be suitable for the needs of his son. In fact apart from stating that one shop/godown in his possession, the appellant has not given any other evidence in regard to the sufficiency and suitability of the shop in his occupation as regards the need of his son. His son has also not given evidence. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the Rent Controller came to the right conclusion that a case of personal requirement of his son in respect of the shop/godown in occupation of the respondent had not been established. The appellant was required to state in his ejectment application that one other shop/godown was in his occupation and that shop was not suitable for the needs of his son. This should have been stated in his examination-in-chief, which was not done in the present case. Even otherwise, it has not been established by evidence that the shop/godown in occupation of the respondent was required in good faith by the appellant for the use of his son. I find no merit in this appeal.
3. First Rent Appeal No. 762 of 1980 is dismissed with costs.