' NAIMUDDIN, J.---This appeal by leave is from the judgment of the High Court of Sindh dated 25-8- 1985 passed in First Rent Appeal No, 474 of 1984.
2. The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant is the landlady of House No, 1469/2 Federal-B Area Karachi, having purchased the same from Shaukat All by a sale-deed registered on 3-12-1973.
3. She filed an application under section 13 of the Sindh Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 for eviction of the respondent on the grounds of default in payment of rent from January, 1974 in spite of service of notice under section 13-A of the Ordinance and that she required the house for personal use and occupation as she was living in a rented house and had no other house in her occupation or use in the same residential area.
4. The application was resisted by the respondent by denying the existence of relationship of landlady and tenant between the parties for want of notice under section 13-A of the Ordinance and by denying the averments made in the application. However, the Controller by the order dated 24-3-1984 allowed the application only on the ground of requirement of the house for personal use and occupation deciding the issues of existence of relationship and service of notice under section 13-A of the Ordinance in favour of the appellant. Before the Controller, the appellant had filed her own affidavit in evidence and she was duly cross-examined. It appears that the appellant's attorney had also filed an affidavit but since she did not appear in the witness-box for the purposes of cross-examination the same was not taken into consideration. In rebuttal the respondent had filed the affidavit of her attorney who failed to appear for the purpose of cross- examination. Therefore, there was no evidence in rebuttal on behalf of the respondent. In the affidavit filed by the appellant she had inter alia stated that she required the house for her personal bona fide use and for the use of her children because she was then living in a rented house alongwith his son Farooq Ali and about that house a rent case No, 3280 of 1977 was pending before the same Controller. She was cross-examined at length wherein it was brought out that sometime she lived with her son Atiq and sometime with her son Farooq Ali.
5. The respondent being aggrieved by the order of the Controller preferred an appeal with the High Court of Sindh which was allowed by the learned Single Judge by the judgment impugned in this appeal. Consequently the order of the Controller was set aside. The reasons which weighed with the learned Judge were that in the notice of ejectment dated 1-4-1978 sent on behalf of the appellant to the respondent there was demand of balance of rent of Rs, 8,160 and there was no mention for the requirement of the house for personal use and occupation. Another reason which weighed with the learned Judge was that on 14-4-1984 when Syed Farooq Ali filed his affidavit personal need of the respondent did not appear to be important to her attorney but when the respondent filed her affidavit she had stated she needed the house for personal use which reflected on the bona fide requirement. The third reason which weighed was that in her affidavit the appellant had stated that a rent case in respect of the house of Farooq Ali was pending but no proof was tendered in respect of the pendency of the said case against Farooq Ali. All these reasons, in our view, are not cogent for setting aside the order of eviction on the ground of personal requirement passed by the Controller for, firstly, the notice dated 1-4-1978 under section 13-A was a statutory notice informing him of the transfer of the ownership of the house and demanding the arrears of rent of Rs, 8,160. Even in this notice a demand for vacating the house was made though without giving the reasons of personal requirement of the house for personal use and occupation.
Non-mentioning of the reason in that notice would not in any manner reflect on the bona fide requirement of the house by the appellant. The other reason that Farooq All in his affidavit had not stated the fact of personal requirement is of no consequence because Farooq Ali did not appear in the witness-box for the purpose of cross-examination and his affidavit was not taken into consideration by the Controller for that reason. Further he had filed the affidavit only in support of the service of notice under section 13-A of the Ordinance, containing the demand for payment of rent. The third reason that the appellant failed to prove that an eviction case against Farooq Ali, the son of the appellant with whom she was residing was filed by his landlord is not valid for the appellant in her affidavit had given the number of the case and stated that the same was pending before the same Controller wherein she had filed her rent case and she was not cross-examined at all in this regard. Further, no evidence was produced in rebuttal by the respondent on any of the issues. It is in evidence that the appellant was residing with her son who was in occunation of a rented house. She did reside with her other son also for some time but that would not detract from her right to have her own house for her own use and occupation. If the landlord or landlady resides in a rented house or resides with his/her son who resides in a rented house and applies for eviction of the tenant from his/her own house, that would be in our opinion, enough to establish the good faith unless other material facts showing mala fides are alleged and proved. Reliance is placed on Abdul Salam Akhtar v. Dr. Najam Parvez 1976 SCMR 52, Abdul Aziz and another v. Muhammad Ibrahim PLD 1977 SC 442, Ghulam Hussain v. Mrs. Chaman Sultan Shafi 1980 SCMR 9, Suleman Ghazi v. Ghulam Haider 1983 SCMR 1085 and Muhammad Asif Khan and another v. Mubarak Ahmad PLD 1982 /Car.
557.
' We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore that of the Controller, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.