1. ' ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.---This appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of Sindh High Court dated 19th December, 1988 whereby the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller against the appellant was upheld on the ground that the respondent-landlord has succeeded in proving that he required the demised premises for the use of his son.
2. ' Leave to appeal was granted by this Court for the reasons which may usefully be reproduced hereunder:-- "It is pointed out by the learned counsel that in the course of the evidence of the landlord, the petitioner was able to bring out in the cross-examination, the fact that respondent No,2 was in possession of two other shops in the same urban area to which he had made no reference in the application for ejectment or in his affidavit of evidence. It was accordingly contended before the learned Single Judge in the High Court, that in view of these admissions the plea raised by the landlords was mala fide and in any case, unless they explained how the two other shops in their occupation, were not sufficient or suitable for the needs of the son of respondent No,2, the application for eviction must be deemed to be not in good faith. However, the learned Judge in the High Court rejected these contentions on the reasons appearing in the following passage of the judgment:-- `It is settled law that if a landlord owns more than one premises in the . Same unban area he has the prerogative to select any one of them for his use and mere omisssion on his part to mention all the properties owned by him does not amount to concealment of any material fact. The next objection of the learned counsel for the appellant is that when a landlord owns more than one premises then while selecting a particular premises out of them he must state the reasons for such preference. I have already pointed out that where a landlord owns more than one premises he has absolute prerogative to select any one of them for his use and this prerogative of the landlord cannot be.. Defeated on the ground that he failed to give reasons for selecting a particular premises out of several owned by him. It is not at all necessary for him to state the reason for his preference to select a particular shop out of several owned by him."
3. We find prima facie force in the contention advanced by the learned counsel that no principle of law confers prerogative on the landlord in the circumstances similar to this case, where he is admittedly in vacant possession of two other shops. Relying on Mrs. Shahnoor Fazal v. Ghulam Akbar Mangi (1987 SCM R 2051), learned counsel urged that on the other hand, the principle laid down by this Court is that in such a case it would be incumbent for the landlord to explain why the accommodation in his occupation is not suitable for his purpose. Contentions advanced raise substantial questions of law which require examination. Leave is accordingly granted to examine them".
4. ' At the hearing of the appeal today, learned counsel for both the parties prayed that several aspects particularly the one that certain shops owned by the respondent-landlord fell vacant during the course of the proceedings require clarification and in the circumstances they prayed that the appeal may be allowed, the impugned judgment of the High Court as well as the impugned order of the Rent Controller may be set aside and the case may be remanded to the Rent Controller for fresh decision after allowing parties to lead evidence.
5. We feel that this is only a just and proper recourse of the disposal of the controversy in the appeal.
6. In the circumstances, by consent, the appeal is allowed, impugned judgment of the High Court and the order of the Rent Controller are set aside and the case is remanded to the Rent Controller for fresh decision as prayed by the learned counsel for the parties.
7. ' Since this is an old case, the learned Rent Controller shall deal with it expeditiously and dispose it of within a period of not more than six months.