' QAZI MUHAMMAD FAROOQ, J.---This petition for leave to appeal has arisen from the judgment, dated 15-12-1999 passed by the High Court of Sindh. Circuit Bench at Hyderabad whereby the order of the Rent Controller, Hyderabad dismissing the landlord's petition for eviction of the petitioner from a shop was set aside and the petitioner was directed to put the landlord in possession of the suit shop within a period of 60 days.
2. The relevant facts in brief are that through a petition under section 15 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 eviction of the petitioner from a shop was sought by the landlord on triple grounds of default in payment of rent, subletting and personal need. The petition was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller but the appeal filed by the landlord was accepted by the High Court on the ground of personal need and the petitioner's eviction from the suit shop was ordered as stated above.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and going through the record we have arrived at the conclusion that the impugned judgment is unexceptionable. The ground of personal need set up by the landlord having been established on record by oral and documentary evidence is certainly bona fide. These contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are more imaginary than real that the petitioner being old, sick and heavily indebted was unable to do business in the demised premises .The landlord had categorically stated on oath that he was physically fit to do business having recovered from piles which had forced him to let out the suit shop to the petitioner. He was not cross-examined either in this context or on the point of indebtedness. As regards his age, it is in the statement of the petitioner himself that he was 60/62 years of age.
4. This brings us to the main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the statement of the landlord recorded on oath did not command respect and the plea of the personal need set up by him was not bona fide as he had singularly failed to prove the remaining two grounds, namely, default in payment of rent and subletting urged by him on oath. The contention is misconceived. Failure of the landlord to establish the grounds of default and subletting can have no bearing on the established ground of personal need which by itself is sufficient to sustain eviction. If the landlord has violated sanctity of oath he may be proceeded against, in accordance with law before the proper forum. Be that as it may, two months' time is allowed to the petitioner to hand over possession of the disputed shop to the landlord failing which he shall be evicted by the Rent Controller with assistance of police and without any further notice. With these observations leave prayed for is declined and the petition is dismissed.