' The material facts culminating in this appeal filed under section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 briefly, are that respondent Dr. Muhammad Naseer Akhtar who is the Executive Vice-President, National Development Finance Corporation, Karachi, had purchased a building situated on Plot No,39-N, Block No, 6, P.E.C.H. Society, Karachi from Begum Sitara Fayyaz Ali, through a registered sale-deed dated 29-6-1985. Appellant Altaf Ahmed Khan who is occupying one flat situated in this building at a monthly rent of Rs, 1,500 excluding electricity, water, gas etc., charges was consequently served with a notice intimating him about the change of ownership. It is the case of the respondent that he was residing in Flat No, 9-B, Lalazar Queens Road, Karachi, provided to him by the National Development Finance Corporation on a rent of Rs, 3,000 per month. The Corporation wanted to dispose of this property and such advertisement had appeared in Daily Dawn dated 26-7-1987. The respondent, therefore, required the disputed premises for his own occupation and the occupation of his family members. The refusal of the appellants to vacate the said premises led the parties into this litigation.
2. The appellant resisted his eviction by disputing the bona fide requirement of the respondent.
According to him the respondent was interested in getting the rent enhanced.
3. The parties went to trial on the following issues:--
(i) Whether the applicant requires the demised premises for his personal bona fide use?
(ii) What should the order be?
4. The respondent examined himself (P.W.1) and Syed Wakil Hyder (P.W.2), while the appellant examined himself (D.W.1) and then closed the side.
5. On the assessm ent of evidence available on record, the learned Rent Controller decided issue No,1 against the appellant and directed his ejectment from the demised premises within a period of two months. This order dated 19-9-1989, is the subject-matter of the present appeal,
6. I have heard Mr. Riazuddin, learned counsel for the appellant and Ch. Akmal Khan learned counsel for the respondent. I have also gone through the record of this case carefully.
7. During the course of arguments it was brought to my notice that the respondent has been transferred to Lahore and he has shifted there alongwith his family members. A photocopy of Annual Report of National Development Finance Corporation for the year 1989 is placed on record alongwith an application made under section 21(3) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, read with Order 41, rule 27, C.P.C. (CMA No, 1109 of 1990) which shows that the respondent is presently posted as Executive Vice-President, RD North Zone. The appellant has also supplied the official/residential addresses of the respondent which are as follows:- OFFICE ADDRESS: Dr. Naseer Akhtar, EVP/RD, North Zone, National Development Finance Corporation, Zonal Office, 7-A, Main Boulevard, Gulberg, LAHORE.
RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS: Dr. Naseer Akhtar, 109-B, Miran Khan Road, LAHORE.
8. The respondent has not controverted this position. No counter-affidavit has been filed by him.
The learned counsel for the respondent has, however, filed his objections to the above application, made on behalf of appellant for additional evidence, wherein the transfer of respondent to Lahore is not disputed but it is pleaded that it was only a temporary arrangement. Para. 3 of the objections is relevant and in order to appreciate the point in issue it will be beneficial to reproduce it:-- "It is submitted that the appellant has tried to confuse the issue by mentioning the facts in such a way that the respondent's transfer may look as a permanent transfer which is not a fact. The respondent wants to get his family settled at Karachi for education and future prospects of his children. The respondent is a Senior Executive Vice-President and his original posting is at the Head Office, Karachi, he has temporarily been transferred to Lahore to settle the administrative structure.
The personal need of the respondent is bona fide in spite of his transfer from Karachi. It is further submitted that the frequent transfers also create problems to the family of the respondent and effect the education of his children and as such the respondent needs the premises to overcome these problems."
9. An Appellate Court can take note of subsequent events that might happen during the pendency of the litigation, provided no prejudice is caused to any of the parties. I am also conscious of the weighty observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Mst. Amina Begum and others v.
Mehar Ghulam Dastgir, reported in PLD 1978 S.C. 220, wherein it was held that the Courts have got inherent powers to would relief according to altered circumstances in larger interest of justice, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings to shorten litigation and to do complete justice between the parties. The complexion of the present proceedings has, however, been changed and any finding on the strength of evidence available on record will cause serious prejudice to the parties who had not anticipated this situation during the pendency of ejectment proceedings. It is, therefore, a fit case for further inquiry within the meaning of subsection (3) of section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The case is, therefore, remanded to Rent Controller for recording addition/fresh evidence on this limited point of changed events produced by both the parties. After recording the evidence so produced by the parties the case will be sent back to this Court for re- hearing of the appeal. It will be appreciated if the compliance of the order of this Court is made expeditiously. CMA No, 1109 of 1990 is disposed of in the above terms.