' MAMOON KAZI, J.---.This appeal, by leave of this Court, is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Sindh, dated 29-3-1994, allowing the respondent's rent appeal and setting aside the order passed by the 1st Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Hyderabad, ordering the respondent's ejectment from the demised premises.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Rent Application No,510 of 1984 was filed by the appellant seeking eviction of the respondent from a shop situated on Risala Road, Hyderabad, which had been let out to the said respondent at Rs,525 per month. Initially rent for the demised shop was Rs,75 per month which was subsequently enhanced to Rs,450 per month and subsequently it was further enhanced to Rs,525 per month. Ejectment of the respondent was sought on the ground of personal need as, according to the petitioner, he needed the shop for his own occupation and use for establishing his own business. In the alternative, the petitioner was ready to occupy one of the shops then constructed by the respondent provided that the shop was of the same size as the disputed shop.
3. The rent application was resisted by the respondent. Evidence was recorded by the Rent Controller where it transpired that previously Rent Case No,369 of 1975 had been filed by the appellant seeking eviction of the respondent from the same demised premises. However, the matter was compromised after rent for the demised premises was enhanced by the respondent from Rs,75 to Rs,450 per month. It further transpired that eviction had been sought in the said case also on the ground of personal requirement and not on the ground of default alone, as had been claimed by the appellant during his cross-examination.
4. The Rent Controller, however, vide order, dated 31-5-1987, accepted the rent application and ordered eviction of the respondent from the demised premises within 60 days of passing of the said order.
5. The respondent, being aggrieved by the said order, filed a rent appeal before the High Court of Sindh, which was allowed by the learned Judge in Chambers and the order passed by the Rent Controller was reversed. It was held that the petitioner had failed to establish "good faith" as required by section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. In this regard, it was observed by the learned Judge in Chambers thus:-- - ' "Respondent admitted in his cross-examination that previous Rent Case No,369 of 1975 was withdrawn on 25-5-1977 because the matter was compromised on enhancement of the rent to Rs,450 P.M. He further stated that in said ejectment application he had sought eviction, on the ground of default and not on the ground of personal requirement. Copy of said application shows that ground of personal requirement was also taken in. Rent Application No,369 of 1975.
Respondent further stated that at the time when he entered into compromise with the appellant, he was not in need of the demised premises. This indicates that despite the respondent being not in need of the premises, he filed Rent Application No,369 of 1975 inter alia on the ground that he required the shop in question for his personal bona fide use. This reflects badly on conduct of the respondent, who took the ground of personal requirement while filing previous rent case, although at that time he did not require the premises in question. If the respondent could act in this way, at the time of filing the previous Rent Case No,369 of 1975, there is no guarantee that he has not done so while filing Rent Application No,510 of 1984."
6. Leave was granted to the appellant to examine the correctness of the reasons given by the learned Judge in Chambers while reversing the findings of the Rent Controller.
7. Mr. J.H. Rahimtoola, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that, inferences drawn by the learned Judge in Chambers are not correct. We, however, find no substance in the said contention.
In the ejectment application earlier filed by the appellant in respect of the shop in question, one of the grounds taken by him was his personal requirement. However, as was pointed out earlier, the matter was compromised by him after the respondent had agreed to enhance the rent to Rs,450 per month. When confronted with such situation in the present case, the petitioner categorically stated that at that time he did not need the premises for his personal requirement. However, this statement was belied by the fact that in the rent application earlier filed by him, eviction had been sought by the appellant inter alia on the ground of his personal requirement. The said inferences drawn by the learned Judge in Chambers are therefore, based on evidence and there is nothing to indicate that the view taken by the learned Judge is either absurd or perverse or that the same is based on misreading of evidence or that any important factor in the case has been overlooked by the learned Judge. Therefore, the said findings of fact do not warrant interference by this Court.
' In the result, the appeal is dismissed.