' HAMID ALI MIRZA, J.---This Civil Petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 12-7-2001 in F.R.A. No, 183 of 1994 (Karachi Tannery (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Muhammad Yousaf deceased through L.Rs,) passed by learned Judge in Chambers of the High Court of Sindh at Karachi, whereby the said appeal was dismissed and order dated 27-2-1994 in respect of eviction against the petitioner passed in Rent Case No,475 of 1990 was maintained.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents predecessor-in-interest Muhammad Yousaf filed an application under section 15 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 against the petitioner/tenant in respect of Shops Nos.2 and 3, one gallery and one room adjacent gallery in the building of Plots Nos.9 and 10, Block-2, Tariq Road, P.E.C.H.S., Karachi on the ground that the petitioner/tenant had illegally, without permission of the respondent in writing, impaired the utility and value of demised shops, and (ii) that the demised shops were required by the respondent for the use of his son Muhammad Sultan in good faith. After recording the evidence and hearing the counsel the learned Rent Controller allowed the eviction application answering the issues on the said grounds in the affirmative. The petitioner/tenant preferred an Appeal No,183 of 1994 before the High Court of Sindh at Karachi which appeal was dismissed as per impugned judgment maintaining finding on Issue No,2 only with regard to personal requirement in good faith of respondent's son Muhammad Sultan but so far finding on Issue No,1 with regard to impairment of utility and value of the demised premises was reversed, hence this petition.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners are that the learned Judge in Chambers and the Rent Controller have misread the evidence and have not appreciated the law laid down by this Court, considering that judgment was pronounced after long interval of hearing and that witnesses were refused to be summoned, so also Muhammad Sultan the son of respondent who was already doing business in a rented premises of import of pigment colour and chemicals also stated that he would carry on the business of garments in the premises in dispute and further that initial demand of Rs,10 lacs which was subsequently raised .To Rs,25 lacs would lead to negate the requirement in good faith on the part of the respondent. He further submitted that the petitioner was in possession of two shops and the alleged personal need of the respondent could be satisfied if only one shop is ordered to be given to him and one shop is allowed to be retained by the petitioner so also that the said Muhammad Sultan was married, independent and separate from the respondent, therefore, his need cannot be termed to be personal need of the respondent/landlord. Reliance is placed upon Muhammad Iqbal v. Mst.
Saeeda Bano (1993 SCM R 1559), (ii) Messrs Fakhri Traders v. Mst. Batool Fida Hussain Sheikh and others 1985 CLC 283, (iii) Mst. Bashir Bibi v. Aminuddin and others (1972 SCM R 534 at 537) and (1973 Law Notes 1).
5. Learned counsel for the respondent/caveator has supported the impugned judgment submitting that there were two concurrent findings of fact of two Courts hence called for no interference considering also that the alleged delay in the judgment has not prejudiced the case of the petitioner as all the legal pleas raised at the time of arguments were completely dealt with in depth by the learned Judge in Chambers and further that good faith for personal requirement was proved by the respondent and the evidence on record 'produced was neither controverted nor plea with regard to the sufficiency of one shop was raised either before the Rent Controller or before the High Court. He has placed reliance upon (i) Abdul Rauf and others v. Mrs. Shereen Hassan (PLD 2001 SC 31), (ii) Messrs. Fakhri Traders, Karachi V. Mst. Batool Fida Hussain and others (1985 CLC 283).
6. We do not find substance and merit in the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
7. We have gone through the entire evidence on record minutely and find that there had been no material misreading or non-reading of evidence. Mere fact that the respondent stated that he would carry out same business which he was carrying out in the rented premises when his son in the cross stated that he would run garments business in the disputed shop would not adversely affect materially the personal requirement of the respondent in good faith. So far as refusal to summon the witnesses by the Rent Controller would also be no ground for reversing the concurrent finding of fact with regard to personal requirement in good faith, considering that the application with regard to the summoning of witnesses did not give brief statement as to what evidence was required to be adduced by the said witnesses so as to come to the conclusion that if the said witnesses would have summoned and examined he would have supported the case of the petitioner/tenant. Even if we assume that it was not necessary to give breif statement with regard to the version which was to be deposed in the application by the said witnesses, the petitioner could have produced the said witnesses before the Rent Controller and it was not obligatdry that the application for summoning of witnesses be granted as a matter of course in absence of the cogent reasons. The petitioner could have filed affidavits of witnesses before the learned Rent Controller. Reference may be made to the case of M/s. Fakhri Traders (supra). The contention of the learned counsel that the said witnesses could have supported the case of the petitioner on the point that the demand of Rs,25 lacs was made by the respondent from him in presence of said witnesses which assertion being an oral and having been made after the completion of the said repair of the shop premises would not adversely affect the merit of case considering that no such plea was made in the written statement or in the evidence. It is an admitted position that the respondent's son Muhammad Sultan has been carrying out business in a rented shop premises which testimony could not be controverted even before us with reference to the evidence on record, therefore, the respondent cannot be deprived of his own property for the personal use of his own son in order to accommodate the petitioner/tenant. So far that the need of the respondent could be sufficiently made with by giving possession of one shop instead of two shops has also no merit as no such plea in the written statement or in the evidence was made, consequently this plea cannot be permitted to be raised before us. There are two concurrent findings of the two Courts and no material misreading or non-reading has been pointed out to us affecting the decision and conclusion reached by two Courts, therefore, no interference is called for.
8. In the circumstances we find no merit and substance in the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Consequently leave to appeal is declined and the petition is dismissed.