MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J .-- Leave is sought by this petition to appeal against the judgment and order of the Sind High Court, dated 29-3-1984 passed in 1st Rent Appeal No. 583 of 1981, on the ground that the respondent had filed three applications for ejectment of tenants from three shops out of ten shops belonging to him on the ground of personal need of his son; and that the respondent, by making false and contradictory statements got ejectments orders in all three cases; that it was admitted by the respondent and his son that Shop No. 6 was given on rent during the pendency of the case and the respondent tried to cover up this fact by alleging that the same was forcibly occupied, even if it was so, the burden was on the respondent to prove this fact; that it is proved on record that the son of the respondent was employed in the Sind Secretariat and is, therefore, not free to enter into business, and as this fact has not been denied, the respondent was, therefore, disentitled to seek ejectment on this ground as well.
2. Relevant facts stated in the petition, are briefly that the petitioner is in occupation of Shop No. 9, Afzal Market, Masan Road, Karachi. The respondent instituted an ejectment case bearing No. 3024 of 1978 against the petitioner in the Court of the learned VIIIth Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller on the grounds of default, subletting and personal need of his son Ehtashamul Haq. The petitioner contested the application and three issues were framed i.e. On default, subletting and personal bona fide need. The learned Rent Controller, per order, dated 27-9-1981 allowed the application for ejectment only on the ground of personal need. Petitioner's appeal in the Sind High Court was dismissed vide the impugned judgment, dated 29-3-1984.
3. We have examined the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in his statement, the respondent Hakim Muhammad Fazal Haque stated in cross-examination: "It is not a fact that Shop No-4 is lying vacant, but it is occupied by Anwar Ali tenant. It is not a fact that Shop No. 6 became vacant during the pendency of this case and have been let out to one Tariq. Voluntarily says that during the pendency of this case Shop No. 6 was lying vacant but it was forcibly occupied by Tariq."
Ehtashamul Haq son of the respondent when examined, admitted in cross-examination.
"There are ten shops in the market owned by my father. Shop No.6 is occupied by a trespasser since last to years. Shop No. 4 is not in my possession. I do not deal in kite business. Anwar Ali is tenant of Shop No. 4."
4. We consider that the evidence on record requires re-examination in the light of the points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Leave is granted. Security rupees one thousand.
Appeal to be heard on the present record with liberty to the parties to file additional evidence if so desired.