1. ' This appeal under section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 is directed against the order dated 20-1-1991 passed by the then learned IIIrd Rent Controller, Karachi, Central, whereby the appellants were directed to hand over vacant possession of the premises in question to respondent within 60 days from the date of said order. The facts relevant for decision of this appeal are as follows:- ' Respondent Mirza Naseem Baig on 18-12-1979 had filed an eviction application against the appellants for this eviction from a shop, constructed on Plot No, 4/422 Liaquatabad, Karachi on the ground of default, subletting, impairing the value and utility of said premises, and personal bona fide requirement. The case of respondent, in brief, is that the premises in question was rented out to one Anwarul Haq and after his death the appellants Nos. 1 and 2, who are son and wife of said Anwarul Haq, had become his tenant. It is alleged that said appellants sublet the premises to appellant No, 3 and these appellants also carved out a cabin inside the premises and sublet it to appellant No, 4 learned Rent Controller, by order dated 11th June, 1983, dismissed the eviction application and the matter was taken to the High Court where the appeal of respondent was partly allowed and the case was remanded back to learned Controller for deciding it afresh on the point of personal bona fide use. Learned Rent Controller by impugned order decided it in favour of respondent and consequently allowed eviction application, as mentioned earlier. In this appeal only the point of personal requirement is to be considered.
2. ' The appellants in their written reply resisted the claim of respondent. It is their case that respondent does not require the premises in question for his personal bona fide use and that he has got other properties where he is carrying on his business.
3. ' Respondent filed his affidavit-in-evidence and that of his witnesses Sultan Khan, and Qamar Ahmad, who all were cross-examined. Appellants Nos. 1 and No, 2 filed affidavit-in-evidence through attorney Abdul Haq Usmani alongwith of witnesses Muhammad Aminullah, Syed Mian, Muhammad Shakeel, and Waseem Ahmed. They had also summoned Muhammad Ibrahim from Excise & Taxation Department. They were also cross-examined.
4. ' The case of respondent on the point personal bona fide requirement is that he and his son are carrying on business of manufacturing and selling Tobacco for Pan and for this purpose they are using their house, which due to increase in business, has now become insufficient for their requirements. It is also the case of respondent that 'New Delhi Hotel, does not belong to him nor he has any other shop except the shop in question.
5. ' The case of appellants is that respondent had rented out Hotel known as 'New Dehli Hotel" to one Mukhdoom Ahmed and a shop to one Muhammad Ayub, and himself is running a shop adjacent to Quarter No, 125, Marton Quarter, near Tin Hutti, since last 15 years. It is alleged that respondent is also running a shop at the back of Iqbal Hotel, Aisha Manzil, adjacent to Hakeem Ibn-e-Sina Hospital, opposite Al-Abbas Square, for the last about 7 years.
6. ' On scrutiny of evidence, it was found by learned Rent Controller that respondent does not have any shop except the disputed premises. Evidence on record shows that respondent was found sitting in a Cabin at Al-Abbas Square, Aisha Manzil. According to respondet, this Cabin belonged to one Niaz Ahmed, who is now dead. His (Niaz Ahmed) son namely, Qamar Ahmed, appeared as witness in Court and stated that respondent was neither a partner nor owner of said Cabin and that he (respondent) some time sit in this Cabin just to help said Niaz Ahmed Appellants witnesses Muhammad Shakeel and Bashir Ahmed, in their cross-examination, stated that said Cabin is like a Thaila, which meant that it could be moved and shifted from one place to another.
7. ' Appellants witness Muhammad Ibrahim, Excise & Taxation Inspector in his deposition stated that licence dated 1-12-1975 (Exh. A/6) bears the seal of K-Division. According to him, this licence was issued for Aisha Man7il, near Earshi Cinema, F.B. Area. He admitted that F.B. Area was never in the jurisdiction of "K-Division". In cross-examination, he deposed that form of licence is genuine but he cannot say who issued it. He also stated that he could not say if the seal on it was genuine or forged. From the evidence of this witness and that of Qamar Ahmed, it stands proved the said Cabin belonged to deceased Niaz Ahmed Thus, evidence brought on record establishes that respondent does not have any other shop except the premises in question. The finding of learned Rent Controller on this point is perfectly correct and no exception can be taken to it. Respondent has clearly stated that, due to increase in business, he requires the premises in question for his personal bona fide use. Nothing material has been brought on record to rebut this assertion. Bona fide personal requirement of respondent has been established beyond any doubt.
8. Learned counsel for appellants contended that impugned order is the outcome of misreading and non-reading of evidence on the point of personal bona fide requirement. It is evident from the evidence available on record that respondent does not have any shop, except the premises in question. The Cabin mentioned earlier belonged to deceased Niaz Ahmed. Besides, said Cabin, as held by learned Rent Controller, is not a building within the meaning of section 2(a) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance. Even if for the sake of arguments it is assumed that said Cabin belongs to respondent, yet, it being not a building within the meaning of said Ordinance the respondent would still be entitled to eviction of appellants.
9. ' Learned counsel for appellants submitted that in the year 1969 the respondent had filed an ejectment application, bearing No, 718/1969, inter alia, on the ground of his personal requirement and the same was compromised on 22-10-1970 and by virtue of said compromis the respondent waived his right of personal requirement. On this point reliance is placed on the case reported in PLD 1982 Kar. 188, Najamuddin v. Zamir Ahmed. In this case, it was held that no doubt West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 does not prescribe any period of limitation for eviction of tenant, but if provisions of section 13(2)(1)(a) of Ordinance violated and in spite of knowledge of violation person sleeps over his right and/or does not enforce his right and does not take advantage or benefit conferred on him by law within the reasonable time, in such circumstances, principle of acquiescence or waiver comes into operation. Above-cited case is distinguishable on facts and the principle laid down in it is not applicable to instant case. In changed circumstances, the principles of acquiescence, waiver, and of res judicator, in rent case, would not ply. Whenever a default is committed it provides a fresh cause of action. Likewise, need for personal requirement depends upon the circumstances. Between the circumstances are changed and the alteration and variation in the circumstances justify the requirement on personal ground, fresh application on the ground can be filed. In the instant case respondent requirement, as explained earlier, is genuine.
10. The landlord is now only to show that he has shown premises in good faith for his own occupation or use or for the use of his spouse or any of his children. It is the landlord discretion to select the premises for himself. The tenant the landlord. {{MISARRANGED TEXT}} ' From the above discussion, I hold that the appeal has got no merits and it is dismissed with no order as to costs. However, three months time from now is granted to appellants for handing over vacant possession of the premises in question to respondent.