' SH. RIAZ AHMAD, J.---This appeal through leave of this Court is directed against the judgment and order dated 21-12-1994 delivered by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Balochistan whereby an appeal filed by the appellant calling in question his eviction from the shop in his possession as a tenant was dismissed.
2. The facts giving rise to the institution of this appeal are that the respondent instituted an ejectment application against the appellant from a shop in his possession as tenant. Before doing so, the respondent had also served a notice addressed to the appellant under section 13-A of the Balochistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance informing him the change of ownership of the said shop. The ejectment was sought by the respondent on the ground of personal bona fide use and on account of default in payment of rent by the appellant. The application was contested and on the pleadings of the parties, issues on default and personal bona fide use were framed. To substantiate his case the respondent landlord produced 5 witnesses and also got his own statement recorded through his attorney. On the other hand the appellant produced 3 witnesses and also entered the witness-box. At the conclusion of the hearing, the learned Rent Controller vide his order dated 30-4-1994 directed the appellant to vacate the premises and to put the respondent into possession thereof.
3. Aggrieved by the order of the Rent Controller, an appeal was taken which was dismissed vide judgment impugned and, thus, the jurisdiction of this Court was invoked through a petition seeking leave to appeal, which was granted on the ground that the respondent/landlord had failed to establish bona fide personal use in respect of the disputed premises because he had not appeared in the witness-box and had got the statement recorded through his attorney and, thus, had not met the requirement of law.
4. On behalf of the appellant it was vehemently argued that the respondent for whose need the disputed shop was required, had failed to appear in the witness-box and no sufficient reason had been advanced for his non-appearance. Furthermore, the evidence had revealed that the respondent was doing cloth business at Chaman and, thus, the plea of personal use by him was just a pretext to get the shop vacated. To substantiate his plea the learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon the judgments reported as Soofi Muhammad Yasin and another v.
Dr. Major Abdul Ahad Khan (PLD 1976 Karachi 1231), Muhammad Younus v. Dr. S. Muzammil Ali (1981 CLC 327), Mst. Shaukat Sultana v. Mst. Zohra Bi (1982 CLC 1761), Mahmood Khan v. Nasima Khatoon (1982 CLC 1807) and Muhammad Asghar and 5 others v Mst. Jamila Khatoon (1979 CLC 367).
5. On behalf of the respondent it was urged that the evidence on record had been thoroughly examined and appreciated and, therefore, the conclusions arrived at by the Courts below are not contrary to the record or illusory because the same stood established in the light of such evidence.
Reliance was placed on Agaria Amir Ali v Abdul .Majid (1993 SCM R 67) and Muhammad Akram v.
Namroz Khan (1994 SCM R 1121).
6. The issue on the question of default in payment of rent by the appellant was decided against the respondent, therefore, we need not dilate upon it and the only question for consideration in this appeal is that fact of non-appearance of the respondent in the witness-box and having got himself examined through an attorney. We have considered the above question in the light of the case-law cited by the learned counsel for the appellant. We are of the view that every case is to be decided keeping in view its peculiar facts and circumstances and no hard and fast rule can be laid down. There can be legitimate causes and reasons for a suitor to a cause for non-appearance in Court. Mental or physical disability as well as the case of a female would stand on a different footing. The Courts are meant for the citizens from where they seek justice and, therefore, to put a clog or non-suit them on account of non-appearance even in genuine cases without any valid and cogent reasons would be a dangerous proposition for administering justice with even hands between the parties. In our opinion, it will not be in the interest of justice to lay down that in every case where a party does not appear or arranges his appearance through attorney, an adverse inference should be drawn against him. Such a rule if laid down, would result into great hardship in cases where the parties, for instance, reside abroad, who will have to sue and defend themselves through their attorney.
7. Adverting to the circumstances of this case, we have gone through the power of attorney executed by the respondent landlord in favour of his brother Abdul Manan and the statement recorded by him on behalf of the respondent. He deposed about the bona fide personal use of the respondent. He was cross-examined at length, but no question was put by the appellant with regard to any circumstance on account of which the power of attorney had been executed.
Nothing was elicited as to the exact nature of the domestic problems of affairs which precluded the respondent from entering the witness-box. The respondent landlord constituted his real brother Abdul Manan as his attorney who is well- versed with the circumstances of the family and is not a stranger and in our view he satisfactorily deposed about the bona fide personal use of his brother.
8. This case has a chequered history inasmuch as prior to the institution of this eviction application, another eviction application had also been filed, but the same was withdrawn. On behalf of the appellant it had also been urged before the High Court that the respondent landlord owns other properties in Quetta, but as observed by the High Court, the appellant failed to substantiate it and no documentary evidence was brought on the record. The evidence adduced by the appellant on record does not satisfactorily rebut the bona fide personal requirement of the respondent in respect of the shop in dispute.
9. In the peculiar circumstances of this case, we cannot hold that the nonappearance of the respondent and his representation through attorney in Court was fatal to his case. There is a concurrent finding of the two Courts below in favour of the respondent landlord and we do not find any cogent reason to interfere with the orders of the Rent Controller and the High Court upholding the same. Consequently, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.