' AJMAL MIAN, J.---This is a petition for leave to appeal filed by the tenant bank against the judgment dated 19-34992 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Sindh in FRA No,753 of 1983 filed by the respondents against the order of dismissal of their Rent Case on the ground of personal requirement by the Rent Controller through his order dated 3-10-1989, allowing the same and ordering the ejectment of the petitioners on the above ground. The petitioners have, therefore, filed the present petition for leave to appeal.
2. The brief facts are that the petitioners since 1976 have been tenants of the suit premises situated at Shaheed-e-Millat Road, Karachi wherein the petitioners have been running one of its branches.
It seems that the original rate of rent was Rs,1,200 per month, which was increased to Rs,3,750 per month through a lease agreement dated 2-6-1985 for a period of three years with effect from 1-7- 1985. It appears that the suit premises is the ground floor portion of a building comprising of a ground plus one floor, which belonged to Ateeq Ahmad who died on 9-4-1983 leaving behind the present respondents as the legal representatives. It further seems that petitioner No, 1 along with his mother and family have been residing on the first floor of the suit premises.
' The respondents filed Rent Case No,66 of 1988 on 27-1-1988 on the ground that respondents Nos.2 to 7, who were residing at Lahore and were carrying on business there, wanted to wind up their business at Lahore and to shift to Karachi. The above application was resisted by the petitioners.
The learned Rent Controller, after framing issues, recording evidence and hearing the parties, through his aforesaid order dated 3-10-1989, dismissed the respondents' above Rent Case by holding that they failed to prove their personal bona fide requirement. The above finding was founded inter alia on documentary evidence which comprised of certain Photostat copies of the correspondence between the petitioners and the respondents in respect of the suit tenement.
' Against the above order, the respondent filed the aforesaid FRA, which has been allowed through the impugned judgment. The learned Judge in Chambers has discarded from consideration the above Photostat copies of the documents on the ground that the originals of the same were not produced by the petitioners and, therefore, inadmissible. For arriving at the above conclusion, reliance has been placed by him on the case of M/s. Bengal Friends & Company, Dacca v. M/s. Gour Benode Saha & Company, Calcutta and others (PLD 1969 SC 477).
' The petitioners have, therefore, filed the present petition for leave to appeal.
3. We have heard Mr. Iqbal Kazi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Khalilur Rehman, learned AOR for the respondents/aviators.
4. It seems to be an admitted position that the above Photostat copies of the documents were exhibited by the learned Rent Controller without any objection from the side of the respondents, in this view of the matter, the ratio decided of the judginent of this Court in the case of Ghulam Muhammad v. United States Agency for International Development (USAID), Islamabad (1986 SCMR 903) was applicable. If an objection to formal proof of a document is not raised at the earliest point of time, no such objection can be allowed to be raised at the appellate stage. Reliance was placed in the above judgment on an earlier judgment of this Court rendered. In the case of Malik Din and others v. Muhammad Aslam (PLD 1969 SC 136).
5. We are, therefore, of the view that it will be just and proper to convert the above petition into an appeal and allow the same by setting aside the impugned judgment but would remand the case to the High Court for disposal of the above FRA afresh after taking into consideration the documents which have been exhibited by the learned Rent Controller.
6. We order accordingly. However, there will be no order as to costs.