1. ' This case has come to me in the second round. The appellant in this case claims to be the owner of the disputed property which is a Kacha house consisting of two portions. One is in occupation of the opponent and the other was formerly in the occupation of one Alam from whom possession was taken by the present appellant according to the statement quoted in the remand order. He needs other porition as well and for which he filed this ejectment application against the present respondent. This case was contested against him and his application was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller. He filed an appeal in this Court which was disposed of by my brother Ajmal Mian, J. by his judgment, dated 14th of January, 1984. Feeling that the evidence produced was too inadequate the learned Judge remanded the case to the learned Rent Controller allowing further opportunity to the parties to prove their respective contentions. The points on which the further evidence was allowed to be recorded were:- It(i) (a) Whether factually the appellant owns another house situated at Shikarpur Road, Sukkur?
(b) Who is occupying the above house and since when?
(c) Whether the said house is suitable to the applicant's requirement?
(ii) Whether the appellant has already been married and if so whether his wife and the child if any reside at Karachi alongwith the appellant or at Sukkur as alleged by the appellant?
(iii) Whether the requirement of the appellant in respect of both the tenements in question is reasonable keeping in view of the nature and type of the accommodation?"
2. ' After the remand the applicant as well as the opponenet filed their respective affidavits contesting the versions of each of them. The appellants contends that he has no other accommodation except the one which is occupied by his elder brother and mother while the opponent contends that a portion of the building in which the opponent is residing is already with the appellant having been vacated by Alam. In this situation both the parties have failed to establish the points which were raised in the remand order.
3. ' Coming to the second point the appellant has repeated his earlier statement that he is married and has a son. He has repeated this fact in his affidavit but the plea remains unsubstantiated.
4. Niether the Nikahnama has been produced nor any other evidence worth the name was examined before the learned Rent Controller. The order of the Rent Controller is a detailed order in which he has laid emphasis on the fact that the claim of the appellant that he is married and has a son which is contested and denied by the opponent remains unestablished. These are findings of fact and I cannot interfere with them. Mr. Durrani learned counsel for the appellant urged that Nikahnama was produced before the learned Rent Controller and it was misplaced or lost in the record. He now seeks to produce a photostat copy of this Nikahnama but in view of the detailed findings in the order of the Rent Controller to the contrary I cannot admit the secondary evidence of this document at this appellate stage. In final analysis it is established that the appellant is employed in the Steel Mill at Karachi and is permanently residing there. He may be visiting his family in Sukkur occasionally. This fact seems to have impressed the learned Rent Controller and it is basis of decision of the Rent Controller. The learned Rent Controller in his discretionary jurisdiction equating the respective needs of both parties seems to be impressed that the appellant is living permanently at Karachi and does not need the portion of the house occupied by the opponent and that it should be left with him. This case came up for summary hearing on more than one hearings and full opportunity was allowed to the learned counsel for the appellant on more than one hearings and two detailed orders were also passed by me. Unfortunately no case is made out for the appellant. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed in limine. Mr. Durrani further contends that the tenant taking advantage of his absence from Sukkur has not been paying rents since April, 1978. This is not an issue before me. If it is so, it is a case of default and he is at liberty to seek remedies by the proper forum.