1980 PLP 772 (SCMR)

NASIM HASSAN SHAH, J In this case, the landlord (respondent herein)) had sought the ejectment of the petitioner from a residential house situated in Lahore (House No. 26, Hota Singh Road. Sant Nagar Lahore) on the ground of his personal use and damage to the property. The ground for damage to the property wax later abandoned and the only ground pressed was that of personal need. The Rent Controller dismissed the application on the ground that the real object of the respondent in seeking the ejectment of the petitioner was to enhance the rent. This conclusion was arrived at on the basis of submission made by the respondent that originally when the house in question was let out in 1962, the rent agreed to be paid between the parties was ‑Rs‑ 65 per month and then it was raised to Rs. 85, per month, then to Rs. 90, per month and finally to Rs. 100, per month. On appeal, the learned Additional District Judge relying on Badruddin Hasan Faruqui and others v. Manghi Industrial Nome (P L D 1976 Kar. 620), held that a demand of higher rent by itself does not cast any doubts about the personal bona fide requirements if the factum of bona fide requirements is independently proved. This requirement was, according to the learned Additional District Judge, proved by the evidence on the record; namely, that the petitioner was living in village Babawalnagar and that he needed the house in dispute for his own personal residence he therefore, accepted the appeal and ordered the tenant to the petitioner in possession. The tenant, therefore, moved the Lahore High Court, by filling an appeal and the learned Judge in the High Court, after perusing the record agreed with the learned Additional District Judge that the respondent did indeed require the house for his personal requirement. The dictum in Badruddin Hasan Faruqies case was approved . Khawaja Mushtaq Ahmad on‑ behalf of the tenant has again tried to press the contention that as the respondent bad increased the rent, the object in seeking the ejectment of the petitioner was for the‑ purpose of enhancement of the rent and the petition was, therefore, not bona fide. The learned Additional District Judge had recorded a finding of fact which the learned Judge in the High court upheld after perusing the record that the landlord did not requires tae house for his\ personal us and in has order rioted this aspect of the case observing the "since this was a case of reversal of the order of dismissal of the application therefore I have examined the evidence myself in order to see whether the need of the respondent was bona fide. We do not need any reason for Interference and agree with the dictum contained in Badruddin Hasan Farauqi and other v. Manghi Industrial home that a demand of higher rent by itself does not cast any doubts about the personal bona fide requirement is independently proved. This petitions is, therefore, dismissed hereby. Petition dismissed.