' NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, J.---We have heard Mr. Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, learned Advocate-on-Record for the petitioner/tenant and have also perused the record.
2. By this petition leave is sought against the impugned judgment dated 25-5-1998 of the Sindh High Court dismissing First Rent Appeal filed by the petitioner and affirming the judgment of the Rent Controller ordering the ejectment of the petitioner from the premises in question, front portion of a house in Federal B Area, Karachi, owned by the respondent/landlord.
3. Ejectment application was filed in November, 1995, on the ground of default in the payment of rent with effect from April, 1995, and also on the ground that the rented premises was required by the landlord for personal bona fide use in good faith. The issues were decided by the Rent Controller in favour of the landlord while allowing the ejectment of the petitioner from the premises in question and, as observed, the High Court has confirmed the judgment of the Rent Controller.
4. On the question of default, the evidence shows that rent of April, 1995, was deposited by the petitioner in miscellaneous rent case on 8-5-1995. On the question of personal requirement the respondent/ landlord in his cross-examination admitted that he had let out the first floor of the house to another tenant and that he had filed the rent case against that tenant on the ground of personal need but then that case was compromised in June, 1996, and then the first floor of the house was vacated by the said tenant which was lying vacant. The landlord also admitted that he had advertised for the sale of the house in question. It was also admitted by the landlord that he had taken an apartment in Bath Island/Clifton and, at the time he had shifted to that apartment, the first floor of the house in question had already become vacant after its vacant possession was delivered by the previous tenant to the landlord.
5. In our view a case for grant of leave is made out. Accordingly this petition is allowed and leave is granted to consider whether the High Court was correct in confirming the decision of the Rent Controller by holding that on the basis of the evidence on record default had been committed by the petitioner/tenant and that the premises in question was required in good faith by the respondent/landlord.