1. ' This judgment will dispose of F.RA. 1210 of 1987 and F.R.A. 1221 of 1987 which have been tiled by two different tenants against the ejectment order passed by the Controller on application of ejectment made by Mst. Zeenat the respondent in both the appeals. The order of the Controller is common, the plea for ejectment in both the cases is the same and the evidence is also common. The respondent filed ejectment case in respect of premises on Plot No,D-203 Main Road Mahmoodabad Karachi which is the subject-matter of F.RA. No,1210 of 1987. She also filed another ejectment case in respect of a premises on the same plot of land. Both the premises in dispute are situated on Plot No,D-203 Main Road Mahmoodabad Karachi. In both the cases the ejectment was sought on the ground that these premises are required for reconstruction for the use and occupation of her son Dr. Muhammad Naim Akhtar who has passed the D.H.M.S. Final examination and is a Homoeopath Doctor. The premises was sought to be reconstructed for use by her son as a clinic. The appellants filed written statement in which they denied the correctness of the claim made by the respondent. The matter was fixed for evidence when the respondent's witnesses filed their affidavits of evidence. As the appellants' Advocate was absent the cross-examination of those witnesses was closed and as no evidence on behalf of the appellant was forthcoming his side was also closed. On the basis of the evidence on record which constituted two affidavits one by the respondent and other by S.M. Khalid who is the son-in-law of the respondent the ejectment order was granted.
2. ' Mr. Abdul Aziz Shaikh the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that due to unavoidable reasons the appellant's Advocate could not appear before the Controller and as sufficient cause for such absence has been shown the impugned order may be set aside and direction may be issued that the respondent's witnesses be allowed to be cross-examined and appellant be allowed to lead evidence. The learned counsel has referred to the affidavit of Ms. Saeeda Bano Advocate filed with the memo of appeal who was appearing before the Controller on behalf of the appellant. Ms. Saeeda Bano has stated that she was engaged to appear before the Controller but on 4-11-1987 and 22-11-1987 she could not appear due to matrimonial problems and sudden divorce pronounced to her. She was under mental worries and did not appear. At this stage it is not possible to enter into this question as it will require consideration of additional evidence in respect of which no application has been made by the appellant. At this stage in my view it is not proper to consider such facts.
3. ' However, the learned counsel for the appellant has argued the matter on. Merits. He had almost concluded his arguments on 4-12-1988 when the matter was adjourned for today i.e, 11-12-1988 for want of time as a part heard matter. Today when I took up the matter at 9-15 a.m. The learned counsel for the respondent and the respondent herself were not present, I have therefore, heard the remaining arguments of Mr.. Abdul Aziz Shaikh in the absence of the Advocate for the respondent.
4. ' The ejectment has been granted on two grounds namely bona fide personal requirement of the respondent's son and for reconstruction. So far the first ground is concerned the respondent has stated in her affidavit that her son has obtained a degree from the National Council for Homoeopathy Government of-Pakistan and he has qualified as a Homoeopath Doctor. The premises is required for reconstruction of a clinic for him. According to the learned counsel for the appellant the respondent has failed to establish that the respondent's son will carry on practice after reconstruction. In this, regard the learned counsel has referred to the counter-affidavit of the respondent filed in reply to the appellant's application under Order 41, Rule 27, C.P.C. Where she has admitted that her son is employed in Pakistan Steel Mill. The introduction of this new factor has changed the complexion of the entire case for the purposes of consideration of bona fide personal requirement. Firstly this material fact was not disclosed before the Controller, secondly since the respondent's son is already in employment it was not established that he would start medical practice in the disputed premises. His affidavit has not been filed. Although in every case it is not necessary that the person for whom the premises is required should file his affidavit, yet in the cases where the premises is required specifically for use by a person on the basis of his qualification, expertise and experience and further that such person is already in employment, his affidavit must be filed to prove his bona fide claim. As his affidavit which was very material for proving the personal bona fide requirement has not been filed, in my view merely by filing the affidavit of mother and brother-in-law does not establish the requirement of Cite respondent's son.
5. The second ground is about the reconstruction on the plot. The respondent had filed duly approved plan for reconstruction. The photo copy of the plan is at pages 67 and 69 of Rent Case No, 984 of 1986. The plan for construction has been approved and renewed in respect of Plot No, 715-A (Final No, 553-A) MAC-II Mahmoodabad Karachi. The learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that the plan for reconstruction of the houk is in respect of a plot different from the one mentioned in the ejectment application. The number of plot in respect of which ejectment is sought is D-203 Main Road Mahmoodabad Karachi. Both these plots are completely different. There is no explanation on record that although the numbers are different the plot is the same. Therefore on the basis of the approved plan it cannot be established that the respondent requires the disputed premises for reconstruction of the building. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case the impugned order of the Controller is set aside. The case is remanded to the Controller to record fresh evidence of the parties on issues involved in it and then decided the case according to law.