1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.--This is a petition for review of the judgment of this Court dated 9-1-1986 dismissing an appeal filed by the petitioner which was directed against the judgment of Sind High Court dated 11-11-1984. By that judgment, the High Court dismissed an appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the Rent Controller dated 23-1-1983, by which he was directed to hand over possession of the demised premises to respondent-landlords. The Rent Controller passed that order on being satisfied from the evidence recorded in the case that respondents bona fide required the premises for their personal use, and the High Court on re-appraisal of the evidence confirmed this view and accordingly dismissed the appeal.
2. Leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court dated 11-11-1984 was granted by this Court so as to consider the question "whether the fact that landlord is residing in a rented house, is by itself, sufficient to prove that he requires the premises in good faith for his own occupation within the meaning of section 15 of Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979".
3. At the hearing of the appeal, it was however, noticed from the record of the case that the evidence produced by the respondents in support of their assertion that they bona fide require the premises for their personal use was not even challenged by the petitioner. On this state of evidence produced by the parties, it was held that the High Court had rightly did not interfere with the impugned order of the Rent Controller." On this view of the case the appeal was dismissed by this Court by the judgment dated 9-1-1986 on merits of this case, and it was considered unnecessary to decide the question on which leave to appeal was granted.
4. The argument is fallacious, for, decision on merits of the case rendered the answer to the question on which leave to appeal was I granted totally redundant and unnecessary. It is not the normal practice of this Court to embark on decisions of the questions of law if it amounts to an exercise in futility. This would have been the position in this case.
5. We, therefore, find no merit in this review petition. It is accordingly dismissed.