1. ' SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.---Appellant is landlord and respondent is tenant of tenement which is a shop bearing No,CS-140 Ward "A" Larkana, having been purchased from Settlement Department by the landlord. After exchange of notices rent was increased from Rs,25 to Rs,50 per month. Ejectment application in Rent Case No,33/81 was filed in the Court of Rent Controller, Larkana, on 10-6-1981 under section 15(2)(ii) and (vii) of Sindh. Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter to be referred as the said Ordinance). Eviction was sought on the grounds of default in the payment of rent from 1-7-1977 to 21-5-1981, for a total period of three years and nine months and personal use.
2. Written statement was filed by the tenant on 16-9-1982 in which allegations of default and requirement of premises for personal need were denied. Keeping in view pleadings of the parties two issues were framed with regard to default and personal need. In evidence landlord examined himself and his son Muhammad Shard. On the other hand, tenant examined himself.
3. ' After evaluation of evidence, Rent Controller vide his order dated 10-8-1985, gave negative finding on the issue of default and granted eviction on the basis of his positive finding in connection with issue of personal need. High Court of Sindh in FRA No,80/85, vide judgment dated 15-2-1987, reversing finding of Rent Controller on the issue of personal need, allowed appeal and in consequence dismissed the ejectment application.
4. ' Leave to appeal was granted by the Court to examine the legal position as to what will be the effect when landlord applying for eviction on the ground of personal need, omits to mention in ejectment application that he has another shop where he is running business. This is to be examined in the light of contentions raised by the counsel for the appellant that shop was required for the need of son of landlord and no objection was taken in the written. Statement and further.
5. Full particulars were given in the affidavits of landlord and his son.
6. ' In this context it would be necessary to refer to the record in order to find out how need was described initially. In the ejectment application landlord has stated in paragraph 8 that he has a large family with five grown up sons and he requires the said premises. In good faith for personal use of his sons. In paragraph 8 of written statement assertion of landlord is denied and is stated that landlord has got other shops which are sufficient for his needs and that of his sons. Need of landlord not to be bona fide is further claimed on the ground of chequered history of the parties and persistent demand of landlord for enhancement of rent in which connection tenant had to appear before Martial Law Authorities and was compelled to execute agreement whereby he had to pay enhanced rent at the rate of Rs, 250 per month. Tenant also filed F.C.Suit No,167/79 for declaration and cancellation of rent deed dated 25-4-1979.
7. ' In affidavit of evidence landlord stated in paragraph 9 that he required premises for personal use of his sons. In paragraph 13 he stated that he had no other shops. In cross-examination he admitted that he has one residential house bearing Survey No,1255 Ward 'A', Larkana, which is a shop where he runs business for himself and his sons. He denied a suggestion that there are two shops on this plot but stated that shop is one which has two doors. He admitted that area of this shop is 43 square yards and denied the suggestion that this shop is sufficient for his use and that of his sons who are dependent upon him. At another place in the cross-examination landlord stated that he has seven sons and he gave their names. He further stated that his. Eldest son Iqbal is employed in Telephone Department and his other son Saleem is a clerk in WAPDA Department. In paragraph 8 of affidavit landlord stated that out of his sons five are gown up. Muhammad Sharif who is son of landlord stated in his affidavit of evidence in paragraph 2 that income coming from the shop of his father is insufficient for large family and tenanted shop is required for his use as he wants to start business to supplement income for the family. Claim of Muhammad Sharif as stated above is neither disputed nor denied in the cross-examination in which on this particular point it was suggested to him that in fact there are two shops on the ground floor of CS No,1255 which is denied. Another suggestive question was put to him in routine manner by way of formality that shop in question was not required by him for his personal use, or that of his father and brothers which is denied by him.
8. ' In the evidence tenant, on the other hand, examined himself only and in his affidavit in paragraphs 16 to 19 he has stated that landlord owns another building bearing CS No,1255 Ward 'A' where two shops are constructed and these shops are big enough for business of landlord and his sons. In cross, he has admitted that landlord has five or seven sons of whom some are minors and some are adults. A perusal of cross-examination of tenant shows that it is mainly on the issue of default and litigation in connection therewith on the point of increase in rent as demanded by the landlord. On the question of personal need no serious effort was made by the tenant to challenge the same on the ground that requirement was not bona fide but mala fide. It is admitted by the tenant that landlord has a large family and some of his sons are grown up and landlord has only one shop. In this connection only stand taken by the tenant is that shop in possession of landlord is big enough and sufficient for his business and his sons.
9. ' Now so far as requirement of premises on the ground of personal need is concerned, landlord stated in ejectment application that he wanted the demised premises for personal use of his sons.
10. It is for that reason that he perhaps refrained from mentioning this fact that he has other shop as well. In his affidavit also requirement is described in the same manner as was in the application. In cross-examination when he was pressed further and asked, question, he has disclosed the details and has given survey number and measurement of the shop in his possession. From the evidence of landlord and his son it appears clearly that right from the beginning landlord wanted demised shop for the use of his son or sons. On the other hand, there is such formal denial from the tenant with regard to requirement and he has not taken any step either to assert positively that requirement of landlord is not bona fide and is mala fide nor is any material produced in support of the claim.
11. ' High Court by its judgment has set aside the finding of the Rent Controller on the issue of personal need on the ground that landlord intentionally withheld information with regard to another shop in the memo. Of ejectment application. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued before us that omission was not intentional but was for the reason that personal requirement was not for landlord but for sons of landlord. Further it is not necessary that in the ejectment application whole case of landlord is to be described in minute detail. Evidence on oath given by landlord and his son is elaborate and supports the requirement for sons which cannot be ignored. It is the evidence which is to be evaluated. As against the evidence of landlord, evidence of tenant is no match and he has not taken the stand that need of landlord is mala fide. Learned Rent Controller has examined evidence and has rightly come to the conclusion that landlord has large family including seven sons out of whom two are employed in Government service whereas four other sons are unemployed and demised shop is wanted for the benefit of unemployed sons. In the instant case we are of the view that evidence produced by landlord is sufficient and satisfactory and supports his claim that shop in question is required for his sons. This being so, objection of technical nature that landlord did not mention in ejectment application that he has other shop will not come in the way in this case for the reason that claim of landlord right from the beginning is that shop is needed for his sons and not for himself. Reference can be made to the cases of Muhammad Sharif v. Nisar Ahmad and others reported in 1988 SCM R 1587 and Mst. Toheed Khanam v. Muhammad Shamshad reported in 1980 SCM R 593.
12. ' For facts and reasons mentioned above we allow this appeal, setting aside impugned judgment of the High Court restoring order of Rent Controller whereby eviction is granted on the ground of personal need. There will be no order as to costs.