1986 PLP 2400 (MLD)

Rana Muhammad Sarwar, Advocate has sent a written application for adjournment. Mr. Haideri has drawn my attention to the order passed last time showing that none of the two counsel, namely, Rana Muhammad Sarwar and Mr. Abdul Sattar Khan Rajput had appeared on behalf of the appellant. Nonetheless they were allowed adjournment making it clear that next time one of them must attend to argue the appeal. Strangely enough, Mr. Sarwar has sent a request for adjournment on account of his own illness while Mr. Abdul Sattar has not at all turned up. The appellant Abdul Majid personally present in Court states that Mr. Abdul Sattar was no more counsel for him as he had returnee the brief time. No such intimation has been sent to Court nor has he so far been allowed to withdraw. It was not open to him to have so withdrawn from the case without permission.

2. The appellant after having failed to produce any of his two counsel despite specific order passed on the last date was asked to argue himself. He expressed his inability repeating the request for adjournment which is refused. Mr. Haideri for the respondents addressed his arguments in Urdu purposely to make the appellant aware of their substance.

3. The appeal is directed against the order of ejectment dated the 5th of October, 1985 of the learned Addl. Rent Controller, Lahore Cantt. passed against the appellant‑tenant in regard to the shop in dispute.

4. The respondent‑ladies sought the appellant's ejectment on the grounds firstly, that he had damaged the shop and secondly, that having no other source of income, they intended to run an industrial school in it and the adjacent shop with a view to raise income for themselves and help indigent girls in imparting them the necessary instructions as also training.

5. The appellant resisted the petition contending that it was mala fide particularly because the respondents being illiterate and untrained could not possibly run such an institution. He further claimed that the two shops were indeed not sufficient for maintaining such a school or to accommodate a large number of students without necessary facilities like playing ground, latrines and bathrooms. He equally denied their plea of scarcity of means of income wondering how so far they arranged their sustenance. He traversed the idea on the respondents' part of doing something‑ for the welfare of the indigent ladies through the proposed school. Lastly, his case was that, in fact, the respondents were compelling him for higher rent.

6. The trial Court framed the following issues:‑ (i) Whether the disputed property has been so damaged by the respondent as to reduce its value or utility ? O.P.P. (ii) Whether the disputed property is bona fide required by the petitioners for their personal business or occupation ? O.P.P. (iii) Whether the disputed property was given to the petitioners in accordance with the decision of the High Court in R.F.A. No.142 of 1976, if so, its effect ? O.P. R. (iv) Whether the present petition is filed with mala fide intention and ulterior motives? O.P. R.

7. All were found against the appellant and he was ordered to vacate the premises within a period of sixty days.

8. One of the respondents‑petitioners presumably Taj Bibi appearing as P.W.1 stated in detail that they both being unmarried ladies had none to support them now. She disclosed that though earlier their brother Farooq Khan used to support them but lately owing to his ill health, they were left without any help from him. She explained that they could run a school for imparting instructions in sewing and knitting etc. by employing trained lady teachers. She also observed that the shop had been considerably damaged by the appellant. She denied if she was keen to get the rent enhanced or to relet the shop after getting it vacated from the appellant. Nothing tangible came out from her cross‑examination to support the appellant's plea. The rebuttal consisted of nothing more than the appellant's own statement as P. W.1 which was entirely bereft of any suggestion to contradict the respondents version. Of course, he denied having caused damage to the property but did not state anything in regard to their setting up of the proposed industrial school. Counsel seemed right in urging that the aforesaid ground for ejectment having not been rebutted stood amply proved. Even otherwise by virtue of the rule laid down in Muhammad Younis Malik v. District Judge, Lahore etc. 1982 S C M R1 834 the landlord himself is the pole arbitrator in regard to his personal needs or the choice of property. There was no indication if the respondents had any other property whatsoever. Rather their case was that they were living till now solely upon the rental income from these very shops which being quite meagre was not enough to make their both ends meet. Consequently their choice as also the personal need were established by their own word of mouth, all the more when it was not contradicted by like words proceeding from the mouth of the appellant.

9. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. H.B.T. Appeal dismissed.