ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, J.-- The appellant is the owner of a shop which was demised by him to the respondents for monthly rent of Rs.200. In 1978 the appellant instituted an application under section 13 of the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, against the respondent for his eviction on the ground that the demised shop was required by the appellant bona fide for establishing a Chemist and Druggist's shop, as he had retired from service. The learned Rent Controller held that the appellant had failed to establish his case as he had not produced evidence to the effect that he had obtained a licence for a chemist's shop or he had any expertise in that business.
Additionally the learned Rent Controller found that prior to institution of the present ejectment application, the appellant had filed two separate ejectment applications on the ground of default in the payment of rent and subletting. Although the appellant had retired from service earlier, he had not claimed possession of the demised premises in those two cases on the ground of personal requirement. Consequently the learned Rent Controller by his order dated 2nd January, 1983, dismissed the application of the appellant.
2. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Sind High Court in limine by his order dated 14th March, 1983, agreeing with the findings recorded by the Rent Controller.
3. Leave was granted by this court to examine the question whether the bona fide requirement of the appellant was proved as per letter (Ex.2) showing that he was retired from the government service which was not considered by the High Court.
4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant at some length. He submits that the fact that the ground of personal requirement was not urged on previous occasions when the two cases of ejectment were filed by the appellant, was not a consideration under section 15 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, and the learned Rent Controller had misconceived the application of the appellant as one under section 14 of the said Ordinance. We find no force in this contention. We have perused the order of the learned Rent Controller and find that he was quite conscious that the appellant's application was under section 13 of the Ordinance of 1959, which is clear from the very first sentence of his order. It appears to us that the application of the appellant was filed under the repealed Ordinance of 1959 and was disposed of under the provisions of the said Ordinance. There was, therefore, no question of misconception of the application as one under section 14 of the Ordinance of 1979.
Even otherwise the contents of the Rent Controller's order quit3 clearly show that he considered the plea of the appellant for personal requirement by applying the provisions of section 13 of the Ordinances of 1959, under which he was competent to examine whether the claim of the appellant was in good faith. It is in that connection that the learned Rent Controller took into consideration the non-inclusion of this ground in the prior application although the appellant had retired from service at that time. We, therefore, agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the Rent Controller did not labour under any misconception of the applicable law. As to the ground that the letter (Ex.2) which proves that the appellant had retired from service in 1976, this fact does not materially advance the appellant's case. The fact remains that he did not press his plea for personal requirement at the time of filing of his previous application for respondent's ejectment.
The other ground which prevailed with the courts below in reaching the conclusion that the appellant's case for requirement was not bona fide are also sound and there is no reason to disagree with the findings recorded by the courts below.
5. In the result this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.