1. ' This appeal is directed against the ejectment order dated 11-7-1993 passed by the learned Controller, Karachi-South, directing the eviction of the appellant from residential premises situated on Plot No,CL-8/32, Civil Lines, Karachi, on the ground of default in payment of rent and bona fide requirement of the premises for respondent No,2 in good faith.
2. ' Appellant is the tenant of the respondents in the demised premises for the last about 20 years at a monthly rent of Rs,200. The tenancy commenced during the lifetime of Haji Ameer Hussain predecessor-in-interest of the respondents. Ejectment was sought on the ground of default in payment of rent with effect from 1-1-1984 to 31st March, 1992, and personal requirement as stated above.
3. ' Appellant filed a written statement and contended that, in fact, the respondents wanted to run a hotel in the premises and the dispute arose some times in 1988. He was therefore, obliged to file a Suit No,6/88 for injunction in which interim stay was granted. As regards the default, he stated that by mutual agreement between late Haji Ameer Hassan and himself on 6-1-1991 the rate of rent was increased to Rs,300 per month. He disputed the prayer with regard to the requirement of premises for bona fide use and occupation by respondent No,2.
4. ' In support of their case, respondents adduced the evidence of respondent No,4 Muhammad Tariq, who filed his affidavit-in-evidence for self and as attorney for remaining respondents. On the other hand, the appellant filed his own affidavit but he did not submit himself to cross-examination with the result that there was no rebuttal of the evidence adduced by the respondents.
5. ' After taking into consideration the respective contentions of the parties and evidence led by the respondents, learned Controller answered both the points in affirmative and directed ejectment of the appellant from the premises which order has been impugned in the present appeal.
6. ' Mr. Muhammad Amin Mangi appearing in support of this appeal, contended that there was no default in payment of rent inasmuch as entire arrears of the rent up to 31st December, 1990, had been paid to the deceased predecessor of the respondents who on 6-1-1991 executed an agreemen acknowledging the receipt of arrears and two years' advance at the rate Rs,300 per month. He has, however, entirely failed to controvert the evidence of respondents' witness by not putting a single question on this aspect of the case. Strange enough, even photocopy of the agreement relied upon by the appellant, was not confronted to the witness and no question was put to him about the contents thereof. Suffice to say, the version of the respondents has gone unchallenged and unrebutted. Learned Controller was, therefore, perfectly right in accepting this evidence on the face of it which was not at all controverted.
7. ' As regards the personal requirement of the premises for the use and occupation of respondent Mehmoodul Hassan there is an averment on oath in the evidence of respondents' witness which was also not rebutted during the cross-examination. The trend of cross-examination would suggest that previously the respondents wanted to run a hotel in the premises but they had dropped this idea. No doubt, the appellant had filed a civil suit against the deceased landlord seeking to restrain him from starting hotel business in the premises. It has nothing to do with the present proceedings which were validly instituted on lawful grounds. Since the appellant did not care, to step into the witness-box, he cannot be allowed to say that the requirement of the respondents was not in good faith or bona tide. Learned Controller has, therefore, rightly ordered the eviction of the appellant which is not open to an exception.
8. ' In the result, this appeal must fail and is hereby dismissed. The appellant shall vacate the premises within 30 days from today.