1. ' SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.---Leave is being sought to appeal against judgment dated 20-6-1990 passed by High Court of Sindh in First Rent Appeal No,193 of 1988, whereby order passed by VIth Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller (South) Karachi, in Rent Case No, 275 of 1985, allowing eviction on the ground of requirement for personal use, is set aside and , eviction application is dismissed.
2. ' Petitioner Mst. Batulbai is landlady and had filed application under section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, for eviction of tenant on the grounds that tenant had unauthorisedly handed over possession to other person, default and personal need. Tenement is on the ground floor of Fakhri Manzil on Plot No,SB-I/33, Mansfield Street, Saddar, Karachi, at rental of Rs,140 per month. Tenant Dr. Amir, who died during proceedings, after eviction was running a clinic. Ejectment application was filed in the month of January, 1985. Landlady averred that she needed demised premises for use of her son Akbar Ali. She has explained in the application that previously tenant surrendered area 6' x 11"-12" by compromise in Rent Case No,3820 of 1981 for use of her other son Najamuddin who was on footpath and at that time Akbar Ali had a shop which was subsequently demolished by K.M.C. Landlady also claimed that tenant has committed default and has not paid rent from December, 1983 to December,'1984 (13 months).. On the ground of subletting she has stated that tenant without her permission has let out a portion to his son to run a dental clinic.
3. ' In the written statement ground of personal need is denied and disputed by the tenant for the reason that previously landlady filed Rent Case No,3820 of 1981 on the same ground which was compromised and withdrawn and in that case she did not state the need to be for her son Najamuddin and the need was described as "for her children". Before filing the rent case from which the present petition arises, she demanded enhanced rent. Default is denied on the ground that landlady stopped receiving rent, hence tenant started depositing rent in the Court in Misc.
4. Rent Case No,544 of 1984, subletting is denied on the ground that tenant has opened a dental section which is placed in the charge of his son.
5. ' In the evidence, landlady examined her both sons, namely, Akbar Ali and Najamuddin, while tenant has examined his son Parvez Amir. Learned Rent Controller, after analysis of evidence, found issues relating to subletting and default against the landlady but granted eviction on the ground of personal need. Finding of Rent Controller was set aside in appeal before the High Court and resultantly eviction application was dismissed.
6. ' It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that finding of the Rent Controller granting eviction on the ground of personal need was supported by evidence which was brought on the record and that finding has been upset by the appellate Court on account of misreading and without proper justification as petitioner/landlady did not conceal any facts from the Court and in her ejectment application has narrated the correct factual position with regard to previous Rent Case No,3820 of 1981, which was compromised between the same parties. At that time her son Najamuddin was on footpath while her other son Akbar Ali had a shop which was subsequently demolished by K.M.C.
7. Tenant objected in the written statement on the ground that in Rent Case No,3820 of 1981, landlady only stated that she heeded premises for the use of her children. In this context it is submitted by the counsel for petitioner that it is not necessary that in the application everything in-detail is to be provided and it was adequate if landlady stated that demised premises were required for her children. Details were yet to come in subsequent stages when the case was compromised between the parties and tenant had surrendered a portion of his tenement. In the compromise application with order thereupon, copy of which is on the record of this Court at page 57, it is not mentioned that portion surrendered is for the benefit of Najamuddin. It is further contended on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner has examined both her sons in the Court of Rent Controller so that factual position, as stated by her, was explained in detail. In order to prove her requirement to be bona fide she has discharged her burden in perfect accord with requirements enunciated in the case of Toheed Khanam v. Muhammad Shamshad reported in 1980 SCMR 593.
8. ' Leave is granted to examine whether there has been misreading of evidence by the appellate Court in view of the contentions raised above. Security is fixed at Rs,2,500.