2001 PLP 1193 (CLC)

A.D. Naseem for Petitioner. Khalid Aziz Malik for Respondents. Date of hearing: 29th September, 2000. Respondent filed an ejectment application against the petitioner on the ground of default in the payment of rent; damaging the demised premises as also requiring the said premises for his personal bona fide need. Learned trial Court, decided issue of default and personal need in favour of the respondent and issue of damage to the property against him. On appeal filed by the petitioner, the learned appellate Court, has also given finding .on the issue of default against the respondent, but has upheld the findings of the learned Rent Controller qua personal requirement.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the respondent had failed to make out a case for bonafide personal requirement of the demised premises and the petition was filed with mala fide intention. There is no substantial evidence on the record to prove the personal need. In this behalf; he has made reference to the evidence led by the respondent.

3. I have scanned through the evidence. Except the statement of attorney of respondent, who only stated that his father i.e. respondent whenever come to Lahore, he has no other place to stay. It is not the case of the respondent that he wants to permanently come and reside at Lahore. Even it is not established that as to how often and for how long respondent comes to Lahore and stayed here. It is fundamental rule of law that in order to prove personal requirement, the bona fide is a condition precedent. From the evidence as mentioned above, it is quite inadequate to prove the personal requirement of the petitioner. The two Courts below should not have allowed the ejectment application on the basis of such evidence.

4. Argument of learned counsel for the respondent that the statement of attorney of respondent on personal need has not been cross‑examined, thus, the facts stated in the examination‑in‑chief, would be deemed to have been admitted, is not well‑founded: Suffice it to say, that from the perusal of examination‑in‑chief of the said witness, bona tide personal requirement of the respondent‑ does not stand proved. Even otherwise, it is not correct to submit that no cross‑examination has been conducted by the petitioner, on the above point. Rather. in the cross‑examination of A.W.2, he has admitted that the respondent owns nine flats and a bungalow at Lahore. Though he has submitted that the flats are occupied, but there is no explanation with regard to the fact that bungalow is also not in occupation of the respondent. There is neither any averments in the ejectment petition that respondent is not occupying any property, suitable for his need, in Lahore, nor such statement has been made by A.W.2, in examination‑in‑chief. From the above, it is clear that both the Courts below have failed to consider the personal requirement of the respondent, in the light of the law laid down by the superior Courts, particularly, with regarding to establishing bona tide by the respondent. This being a case where the forums below have erred in reading, the evidence; thus, the orders cannot be sustained. By allowing this writ petition, the orders impugned, therefore, are set aside. H.B.T./K‑64/L Petition allowed.