ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, J.- The petitioner who is a tenant in the residential premises belonging to the respondent was sought to be evicted there from on the grounds of sub-letting, personal requirement, reconstruction and default in the payment of rent. The learned Rent Controller by his order dated 31-10-1982, however, found that the landlord had failed to establish any other ground except the bona fide personal requirement. The tenant challenged the order in appeal before the High Court of Sind and the landlord also filed cross-objections questioning the finding of the Rent Controller as regards the rest of the grounds rejected by him. The learned Judge of the High Court by the impugned judgment dated 2-11-1983 dismissed the appeal of the tenant and also reversed the finding of the Rent Controller on the issue relating to reconstruction. The result was that the eviction order against the petitioner passed by the High Court proceeded on the grounds of bona fide personal requirement and re-construction. The petitioner seeks to challenge the judgment of the High Court by means of this petition for special leave.
2. In support of this petitioner it is contended that under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 the cross-objections filed by the landlord were not competent, but as' we have found that the eviction of the petitioner on the other ground, namely, the bona fide requirement of the landlord is unexceptionable, it is not necessary to go into the question of law raised by the learned counsel regarding the maintainability of the cross-objections.
3.After hearing the learned counsel at some length and perusing the judgments of the Courts below we are satisfied that the High Court has on a proper reappraisal of evidence upheld the finding of the Rent Controller that the premises were required by the landlord for his bona fide personal use. The contention of the learned counsel that mere fact that the landlord was residing in a rented "Katcha Pacca house" was not sufficient in law to entitle him to the possession of the disputed premises and much less without tangible evidence that the accommodation available with the landlord was insufficient for his needs, has no substance. In Abdul Salam v. Najam Pervaiz 1976 SCMR 52, it was laid down by this Court that the requirement that the landlord should not be in occupation of another residential building suitable for his need at any the, does not extend to cover rented premises. As no other ground was urged, this petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.