1. ' SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.--In this appeal before us appellant is tenant (hereinafter to be referred as tenant) and respondent namely; State Bank of Pakistan are owners and landlords (hereinafter to be referred as the Bank), in respect of tenement which is a portion of godown at rental of Rs,600 per month. The Bank filed ejectment application under section 13(3)(ii) of West' Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 (hereinafter to be referred as the said Ordinance), which was registered as Rent Case No,649/1973, in the Court of XIth Civil. Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi, on the ground that demised premises were required for personal use. In the written statement claim of the Bank was denied and disputed on the ground that the Bank had purchased entire property of State Bank of India including the portion which is tenement, hence when several accommodations were available, requirement as stated, was not bona fide. In evidence Bank has examined, in support of its case, PW-1 Ziauddin Abbasi and P.W.2 Muhammad Idrees Siddiqui, who are both Accounts Officers. On the other hand tenant has examined himself. After evaluation of evidence, vide order dated 25-9-1975, Rent Controller ordered eviction by directing tenant to hand over vacant possession within one month.
2. ' Against eviction appeal (R.A.No,617/1975) was filed which was allowed by Vth Additional District Judge, Karachi, vide judgment dated 16-10-1980, whereby order of eviction was set aside. The Bank filed II-Appeal No,6/1981 in the High Court of Sindh, which was allowed by judgment dated 11-12- 1984 by learned Single Judge, on the ground of misreading of evidence by Ist Appellate Court and in consequence eviction has been ordered to take place within four months.
3. Leave is granted vide order dated 29-4-1985 to consider, whether High Court has erred in reversing finding of fact recorded by the 1st Appellate I Court in the limited scope of exercise of powers in a second appeal.
4. ' Mr. Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim counsel for appellant/tenant submitted before us that the Bank has failed in the Court of Rent Controller in proving the fact that demised premises were required bona fide for personal use. In evidence P.W.1 Ziauddin Abbasi only stated that Exchange Department was shifted to the newly-purchased building (which contains tenement) and space vacated was occupied by other departments. He could not explain as to for what purpose tenement was required and what department would be shifted there. He admitted that he did not know whether space occupied by Exchange Department in new building was larger than space in the old building. He admitted that he had not seen new building in which demised premises are situate. He also admitted that he did not know whether other portion of godown was vacant when case was registered. He also admitted that there is vacant open space in the compound of building in dispute. P.W.2 Muhammad Idrees Siddiqui stated in his evidence that Bank has three buildings in Karachi, two on I.I. Chundrigar Road and one on MA. Jinnah Road. Two buildings include Head Office of State Bank. He admitted that when building in dispute was purchased, tenant was in possession of the tenement. He also did not specify and pinpoint as to for what particular purpose demised premises were required. On the other hand tenant stated in his evidence that when case was filed adjacent portion was vacant. It was contended by the learned counsel on behalf of tenant that on the basis of evidence so produced by the parties it is possible to take the view that the landlords/Bank have failed to prove their need. In any case, in second appeal finding of fact arrived at by Ist Appellate Court cannot be set aside. Rule is laid down in the case of Pathana v. Mst. Wasai and another reported in PLD 1%5 S.C. 134, which says that if evidence on the record is equally capable of two interpretations and first Appellate Court had adopted one of them then that Court is not deemed to have misdirected itself. Slight error in reading evidence is not within purview of.
5. Section 100(1)(c), C.P.C., and interference in second appeal on that ground is not warranted.
6. ' In the impugned judgment (page 14 of paper book) while discussing evidence on the question of proof of bona fide requirement reliance is placed on the case of Hassan Khan v. Mrs. Munawar Begum reported in PLD 1976 Karachi 832, which view was subsequently confirmed in case of Mst.
7. Toheed Khanam v. Muhammad Shamshad reported in 1980 SCM R 593. Rule laid down in the cases mentioned above is that on the issue of personal need, assertion or claim on oath by landlord if consistent with his averments in his application and not shaken in cross-examination, or disproved in rebuttal is sufficient to prove that need is bona fide. In the High Court case mentioned above, plea of landlord that he required premises for his personal need which was supported by evidence was rejected on the ground that he failed to prove his illness as heart patient by medical evidence.
8. It was held that evidence in the case fully justified the claim by the landlord and to have dismissed this plea as not proved merely because he had failed to prove his illness as a heart patient by medical evidence was arbitrary and contrary to law.
9. ' In the instant case this rule will not apply for the reason that the evidence produced by the Bank is unsatisfactory, vague in nature and thus falls short of proof. This deficiency was noticed by the learned Single Judge in the High Court while dealing with this evidence and a portion from the impugned judgment (pages 13 and 14 of paper book) is reproduced as under:-- "It is correct that the evidence regarding bona fide requirement as stated by the appellant's witnesses in their examination-in-chief is very short and full details have not been given, but if the statement is read alongwith the cross-examination, the gaps have been filled in and full detail of such requirement has been given. The witness has also stated about the existing space in occupation of the appellant, the purpose for which it is required and also that there are no other proper places for use by the appellant. On the other hand the main thrust of the respondent's cross-examination and the defence was that the appellant is in possession of sufficient accommodation and therefore, it can satisfy its need from the existing space available with it.
10. Although such statement has been made by the respondent also, at no stage he has given.Particulars of such building and accommodation which are lying vacant and are available with the appellant."
11. ' It is very clear that learned Single Judge in the High Court was conscious about deficiency in the evidence of the Bank which was vague in nature but then attempt was made to fill in the gaps by finding fault in the evidence of tenant. Here is a case in which plea of the landlords is that premises in dispute are wanted for personal use. Burden is upon the landlords to prove its case even within the four corners of the rule laid down in PLD 1976 Karachi 832 and 1980 SCM R 593 but this has not been done. It has come on the record that there is sufficient accommodation available with the bank. It is not pinpointed as to for what particular purposes demised accommodation is required and for what use it would be put to. P.W.1 Ziauddin Abbasi has admitted in his evidence that he had not himself seen the newly-purchased building in which demised premises are situate. In view of such evidence being available on the record finding of fact by the first Appellate Court is not open to interference in second appeal as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Pathana v. Mst. Wasai and another mentioned above. In support further reference can be made to the cases of National Bank of Pakistan v. Messrs A.B.C. Chinese Restaurant 1987 M LD 625,,Muhammad Yousuf and another v. Abdul Lateef Khan reported in 1987 M LD 2800 respectively. In the case of Mrs. Shahnoor Fazal v.
12. Ghulam Akbar Mangi (1987 SCM R 2051), no exception was taken to the order of the High Court whereby order of, ejectment made by Rent Controller on the ground of personal need was set aside and counsel for the landlady was unable to convince the Superem Court as to how in absence of a specific pleading as to vacant premises not being sufficient for her needs she could seek ejectment of tenant from the disputed premises.
13. ' For the facts and reasons stated above, we allow this appeal and set aside judgment of the High Court upholding order of The first appellate Court, whereby ejectment application has been dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.