1994 PLP 1807 (CLC)

Date of hearing: 19th October, 1993. In this Constitutional petition legality of order dated 2‑1‑1990 passed by the Rent Controller by which the ejectment petition filed by respondents Nos.3 to 5 on the ground of personal need had been accepted and order dated 30‑4‑1991 through which the appeal filed by the petitioners against the said order was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, have been called in question.

2. Respondents Nos.3 to S sought eviction of the petitioners from the property in dispute on the ground that the same was required for bona fide personal need in good faith of Mst. Gul Zarree and Mst. Gul Seemi. The ejectment petition was contested by the petitioners. It was also pleaded that an amount of Rs.2,00,000 was spent by him on the improvement of the property.

3. The Rent Controller after careful and elaborate appraisal of evidence produced by the parties came to the conclusion that the need as regards Mst. Gul Zarree had been established whereas as regards Mst. Gul Seemi it appeared to be a mere desire to occupy the property, she was admittedly living in Masqat with her husband. This finding has been upheld by the Additional District Judge in appeal filed by the petitioners.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that he made an application before the Rent Controller for summoning the record of property owned by Mst. Gul Zarree from the Cantonment Cooperative Housing Society which was not allowed and had the same been allowed to be produced, the personal need of Mst. Gul Zarree would also not have been proved.

5. Learned counsel for respondents Nos.3 to 5 has placed on record photostat copies of the documents of the said property. From these documents it is manifest that Plot No. 88/1 in Block L', Phase‑I in the Scheme of the said Cooperative Society was allotted to Muhammad Munawar son of Mian Muhammad Shafi on whose request. the membership of the Society alongwith the plot was transferred to Dr: M: Manzoor Ahmad the husband of Mst. Gul Zarree in May, 1989. In April, 1990 the same was allotted/transferred in 'the joint names of Dr. M. Manzoor Ahmad and Mst. Gut Zarree. It was an open plot and not a house. According to the certificate issued by the Maintenance Engineer of the Cantonment Cooperative Housing Society the construction of the house on the said plot was completed on 1‑6‑1991. The ejectment petition was filed in the year 1988, therefore, at that relevant time the house .had not been constructed on the said plot rather the said plot was transferred to the husband of Mst. Gul Zarree after institution of the ejectment petition in the year 1989, therefore, the same did not have any bearing upon bona fide need of the property in dispute by Mst. Gul Zarree. I hold that even if the said evidence had been produced the finding of the Courts below would not have been different.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners should have been allowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000 regarding improvements made by them over the property in dispute.

7. I am afraid the contention looses sight of the fact that no evidence was led to prove that that much amount in fact was spent by the petitioners, for, there is no documentary evidence brought on the record. Even otherwise the petitioner when examined himself as his own witness did not state that he spent a specific amount on repairs or improvements of the house.

8. Mst. Gul Zarree when examined herself as her own witness did not conceal the factum of .the said property in the Cantonment about which a mention has been made above. She stated that the house in dispute is required bona fide by her on account of convenience of her son who was admitted in Aitchison College as the property in dispute was situated nearer to the said Educational Institution. After going through the evidence I am not persuaded to hold that the two Cburls below while arriving at the conclusion that bona fide need of Mst. Gul Zarree was proved, misread, misconstrued or kept out of consideration any material piece of evidence. In my view even the‑case of Mst. Seemi appears to have not been looked from its proper angle. She stated that she was living in Masqat but wanted to shift to Lahore with her children for the' purposes of their education. The bona fides of the said statement could not have been doubted unless there was strong evidence to the contrary and it could not have been held that it was her mere desire as done by the Rent Controller. Be that as it may, the case of bona fide personal need and good faith of Mst. Gut Zarree has been proved beyond any doubt and it was primarily the satisfaction of the Rent Controller which was of course subject to correction by the lower appellate Court in these matters which having been decided in favour of the respondents, the same has not been shown to have suffered from any illegality or jurisdictional defect.

9. No case has been made out for interference in Constitutional jurisdiction in the impugned orders. The writ petition fails which is accordingly g dismissed with no order as to costs. The petitioners are allowed two months time to vacate the premises from today subject to payment of monthly rent. A:R.K./A‑619/L Petition dismissed