1. ' The appellant Fazal Khursheed was inducted as a tenant of the rented premises bearing NoA-381, Block N, North Nazimabad, Karachi by its owner Mst. Noor Jehan through an agreement executed by them on 30-3-1973.
2. ' The ownership of the premises then changed as it was purchased by respondent S. Agha Jawed Raza through a registered sale-deed executed on 12th April, 1974. Intimation about the change of ownership was given to the appellant but he did not pay rent to the respondent. The respondent, therefore, brought an action for his ejectment from the rented premises on the ground of default in payment of rent. The IXth Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller by his order passed on 19th November, 1984 (R.C. No,2361 of 1977) allowed the application filed by the respondent on the ground that the tenant had committed default in payment of rent. The appellant did not succeed in his First Rent Appeal (F.RA. No,1174 of 1984) in the High Court. He, however, succeeded in his appeal filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan (Civil Appeal No,74-K of 1988).
3. ' On 31-7-1985 respondent filed another application for ejectment of the appellant on the ground that he needed the premises in question for his own use and occupation and for the use of his wife and four children as they did not have any other house of their own to live in and were living with his mother-in-law. The second application for ejectment was filed while the litigation between the parties on the basis of earlier ejectment proceedings was pending before this Court.
4. ' The appellant resisted the second application filed by the respondent and asserted that the respondent was living with his family at Qatar to carry on business there since last several years and on his visits to Karachi he lived in a palatial building constructed on a plot of 2000 sq. yds. in Defence Society with his father. He further pointed out that his mother and brothers also owned a number of buildings in Karachi and the rented premises in question was not required for their bona fide use.
5. ' Both the parties led evidence in the case and the Rent Controller by his order passed on 30th July, 1989 allowed the application. It is against this order that the present appeal under section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 has been filed.
6. ' Mr. Abdul Majeed Khan, Advocate for the appellant, contended that the respondent had initiated ejectment proceedings on the ground of default in payment of rent and the notice served on the appellant on behalf of the respondent calling upon him to vacate the premises before the institution of the case did not indicate that he needed the rented premises for his personal bona fide use. According to him, after the respondent realised that he did not have a good case for ejectment on the ground of default in payment of rent he filed the subsequent application after a lapse of 11 years since he purchased the premises in question. He referred to the cases reported in 1984 CLC 755, 1985 CLC 2419 and PLD 1984 Kar.
141. He further contended that the respondent did not examine himself in the case and, therefore, proper proof of his requirement could not be determined. He referred to the cases reported in 1986 CLC 333; PLD 1985 Kar. 624; 1979 CLC 367 and PLD 1986 Kar.
7. 637.
8. ' Mr. Habibullah M. Jatoi, Advocate for the respondent, supported the judgment passed by the Rent Controller and stated that respondent had established through cogent evidence that the rented premises was needed for his personal bona fide use. To support his case he referred to the cases reported in 1989 CLC 639; 1987 CLC 1716; 1985 SCM R 1960; PLD 1988 Kar. 366; 1986 CLC 821; 1983 SCM R 178 and 1989 CLC 644.
9. ' The respondent landlord in his first case had claimed ejectment of the appellant (tenant) from the rented premises solely on the ground of default in payment of rent. Before initiating such proceedings he had through a notice through his Advocate intimated the appellant (tenant) about the change in the ownership of the premises occupied by him and called upon him to vacate the premises on the ground of non-payment of rent. He further claimed that while the transaction of sale was in progress the appellant actually vacated the premises with the result that the previous owner handed over its vacant possession to him at the time of registration of the conveyance. The appellant, according to him, was readmitted as the tenant of the premises as he could not make alternate arrangement for a period of six months. He further demanded the possession as the new owner intended to complete the construction of the premises in accordance with the approved plan. In the notice it was never pointed out that the premises in question were needed for the personal bona fide use. The respondent in his evidence did not reaffirm his plea of having got the vacant possession of the premises on completion of the sale-deed in his favour but straightaway claimed that due to changed circumstances the applicart is being forced to stay with his family with his mother-in-law, who has now asked them to vacate the premises. In his second application the respondent did not clearly mention the circumstances that led him to live with his mother-in- law. The pleadings although are intended to be brief but at the same time facts relevant to the case and the cause of action ought to be properly stated. In the present case the pleadings filed by the respondent are bereft of all such facts. His earlier stand that the premises, while the transaction was being carried out between him and the previous owner, was occupied by the appellant who had vacated it to facilitate the passing over of the vacant possession of the premises in question to the respondent is not supported by any evidence brought on record. The respondent accordingly has been taking imaginary stands relating to the property in question. In a case like the present one where a shadow of doubt is cast on the evidence led by the respondent the Court has to act cautiously. Such a conduct of the landlord will undoubtedly adversely affect his bona fides. By -taking such view I am supported by the case of Mst. Begum Jehan v. Abdur Rasool published in 1984 CLC 755.
10. Admittedly the respondent landlord has established his business in Doha (Qatar) and residence there. Though in spite of his residence in Doha (Qatar), he can yet seek ejectment of a tenant from property owned by him for his personal bona fide use if he can establish by sufficient evidence his such requirement. In the present case such evidence is not available on the record and there is merely a word of the attorney of the respondent against the word of the appellant.
11. ' For the foregoing reasons the judgment impugned in this appeal is set aside and .