1981 PLP 508 (SCMR)

ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-The facts giving rise to this petition for special leave to appeal are briefly as follows:- Muhammad Shahid respondent No. 1 lives with his father Muhammad Sadiq A. W. 3 in a portion of House No. 122, Block A, Peoples Colony, Faisalabad. His Phuphi (father's sister) Mst. Noor Jehan aged 45 years (respondent No. 2), who has remained unmarried, also resides in the same house with her brother Muhammad Sadiq, The remaining portion was let out on rent to Habib Bank Limited, Faisalabad (petitioner) in 1975, for the residence of its Branch Manager Mr. Ali Afzal Jafri. Shahid and Mst. Noor Jehan respondents filed an application for the ejectment of the tenant from the premises in question on the grounds of default in payment of rent as well as, on the ground that the premises was required for personal use of the applicants. It was stated in the application that Muhammad Shahid was appearing in his L. L. B. ' Examination; that he was also going to be married and required the premises in question for his own residence where he would also set up his legal practice. It was also stated that the applicants did not own any other residential house suitable for the aforementioned purposes. Muhammad Shahid appeared as a witness in support of this application and reiterated that the premises in question was required by him and his aunt Mst. Noor Jeban respondent for their own residence. The averments in the ejectment application were also supported by his father Muhammad Sadiq A. W. 3, Muhammad Jamil A. W. 1 and Sardar Muhammad A. W.

2. Abdul Hamid Khan O. S. D. was produced as the solitary witness in, rebuttal. The learned Rent Controller disbelieved the evidence with regard to the non-payment of rent but held that the house was bona fide required by the applicants respondents for their own residence and consequently ordered the ejectment of the petitioner-tenant by an order dated the 6th of March, 1978. The tenant-petitioner filed an appeal against the said order which was dismissed by the learned District Judge on 20-6-1978, who reversed the finding of the Rent Controller with regard to the payment of rent agreeing with the respondents' contention that tenant had committed default in payment of rent. He, however, upheld the finding of the Tent Controller that the premises in question was required by them for 'their personal use. A second appeal was then filed by the tenant petitioner before the High Court. The learned High Court Judge agreed with the 'earned Rent Controller and found that there was no default but upheld the concurrent finding of the two Courts below with regard to the requirement of the premises by the two respondents for their personal use, vide judgment dated the 8th of January, 1979. Aggrieved by that judgment the petitioner leas filed the present petition for special leave to appeal. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and have also gone through the entire evidence, copies of which were supplied to us during the hearing. The main contention urged by the learned counsel for the petition was that it has not been, stated by the witnesses that the owners-respondents required the house for their personal use and that mere expression of desire to reside in one's own house cannot be equated with `requirement' for that purpose. In support of this be cited Khushi Muhammad v. Muhammad Rashid Walm (1968 S C M R 1158) and Haji Ghulam Muhammad v. Abdul Qadir (P L D 1975 Lah. :200). We however feel that this contention has no foundation because in the application for ejectment as, well as in the evidence it has been clearly stated that the petitioners' bona fide required' the premises in question for personal use. The Urdu expression used in this respect in the application as well as in the statement of Muhammad Shahid (owner respondent) and Muhammad Jamil A. W. 1 [derkar hai] is which is equivalent to the English word `required'. It was contended further that Muhammad Shahid had not said any thing about his getting married. This contention overlooks that this tact is stated in the ejectment application and has also been clearly deposed by his father Muhammad Sadiq A. W. 3, who was the proper person to have made this statement in view of the prevailing social custom that marriages of young persons are usually arranged by their parents. It has also been brought out in the evidence of the A. Ws. that Muhammad Shahid was appearing in the L. L. B. Examination and would set up his own legal practice. This is one of the reasons for which he wanted to get his own house vacated. No case has been made out for interference in the main judgment of the High Court. Consequently we dismiss the petition. Petition dismissed.