' SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---The petitioner is seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of a learned Judge in Chambers of High Court of Sindh dated 17-9-1998 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner under section 21 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 against the order of Rent Controller dated 29-8-1994 granting ejectment on the ground of personal and bona fide requirement of the shop in occupation of the petitioner was upheld.
2. In seeking leave to appeal the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following contentions:---
(i) That the ejectment application was incompetent as no application for ejectment could be filed by a person for the requirement of his stepfather or a brother;
(ii) that the application was incompetently filed by a person who did not hold proper power of attorney;
(iii) that in the legal notice served on the petitioner prior to the institution of the case, one of the respondent was shown to be grown up child whereas in the application filed by the respondent for eviction of the petitioner, same child was shown to be a minor;
(iv) that evidence of one of the witnesses could not be relied by the Courts below as he had admitted that he did not appear before the Oath Commissioner to verify the contents of his affidavit; and
(v) that son of the petitioner, who allegedly required the premises for personal and bona fide requirement did not appear in support of the , eviction application.
None of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner has any merit. The Rent Controller in his order has categorically recorded the finding that the premises namely, the shop in respect whereof ejectment was sought by the respondent, was jointly owned by respondents Nos.1 and 2. In the ejectment application, it was alleged that the shop was required for personal and bona fide requirement of respondent No,1 as well as for the husband of respondent No,2. The contention of the learned counsel for petitioner that the husband of respondent No,2 could not institute the ejectment case as the power of attorney executed in his favour did not authorise him to file ejectment case is devoid of any force. Besides the fact that the power of attorney executed in favour of Abdul Wahab Siddiqui, husband of respondent No,2, contained a clause which authorised him to file suits and applications, it has come in the evidence that the ejectment application was filed by the respondent No,2 under her own signatures for self as well as guardian of respondent No,1, who was described as a minor. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the legal notice served on the petitioner in February 1992, respondent No,1 was shown to be a grown up child while in the ejectment application he was shown to be a minor, which falsified their stand. We are unable to understand contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The fact that in the notice, respondent No,1 was described as a grown up boy, does not mean that he was also a major. In any case the learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out anything from the evidence on record that the assertion of respondent No,2, that respondent No,1 was a minor, was in any way contrary to the fact. Even otherwise nothing turns out on this issue if respondent No,1 was minor at the time of institution of the case. It is not disputed that respondent No,1 is now an adult. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the son of the respondent, who required premises had not appeared in the witness-box, equally has no force. The respondent had examined her attorney and his evidence was found by the two Courts below as consistent with the averments made in the plaint and we see no reason to arrive at any different conclusion. No case for interference with the two concurrent judgments of the Courts below is made out. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed and leave is refused. However, keeping in view the fact that the premises occupied by the petitioner is a commercial premises, he is allowed time up to 31-12-1999 to vacate the same subject to the condition that during this period, the petitioner shall regularly pay to the respondents or deposit in Court, the monthly rent of the shop as directed by the Rent Controller and in case he commits default in payment of rent or he refuses or neglects to vacate the premises on expiry of the time allowed, he will be evicted therefrom without any further notice.