1979 PLP 157 (CLC)

of unquestioned veracity-Not just; in circumstances to non-suit respondents on short ground of respondent, father of son, having not himself entered witness-box to state shop having been required by his son. (b) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)- S. 13(3)(a)(ff)-Bona fide requirement-Son for whose use shop in dispute required to be vacated holding a shop in rural area and that too in residential ihata of respondents landlords while shop required to be vacated situated in bazar of a town-Son expected to have more comfort and better business in latter than in former- Need for disputed shop, held, rightly found to be genuine and bona fide. Sardar Mamhood Khan for Appellant. .. This is second appeal against an order by the District Judge, Bahawalpur, whereby he dismissed the first appeal of the appellants, Muhammad Ramzan and another, against an order for their ejectment from a shop.

2. The order for the ejectment of the appellants was passed on an application, under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, made by the respondents, Ghulam Muhammad and another, who were owners of the said shop. It was alleged by the respondents that the shop in dispute was needed for occupation of Muhammad Bashir who is a son of respondent No. 1, Ghulam Muhammad. This plea found favour with the Rent Controller, who had heard the application. He, therefore, ordered the ejectment of the appellants. Feeling aggrieved by his order, they went in appeal before the learned District Judge, but without success, Hence this second appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the two tribunals below had erred in holding that the respondents required the shop in dispute for occupation of a son of one of them. The evidence produced by the respondents to prove their case consists of the statements of four witnesses. P. W. 4, Noor Muhammad is one of the respondents. He stated that they required the shop for bona fide personal use of Muhammad Bashir, who is a son of the other respondent, Ghulam Muhammad. The said Muhammad Bashir appeared as P. W. and deposed that he was in need of the shop in dispute. Ghulam Farid (P. W. 1) and Noor Hassan (P. W. 2) also supported the respondents' version. It was in view of the aforesaid evidence that the two lower tribunals recorded a concurrent finding that the respondents required the shop in dispute, in good faith, for occupation of a son of one of them.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants maintained that since Ghulam Muhammad respondent, whose son, Muhammad Bashir is said t o be in need of the shop in question, did not come forward to state on oath that Muhammad Bashir required the shop, in good faith, for his occupation, the entire evidence adduced by the respondents, including the depositions of the said Muhammad Bashir and the other respondent, were of "no use. I am unable to accept this argument. The plea of bona fides need of a son of one of the two respondents (landlords) is supported by the evidence of the aforesaid son as also the testimony of the other respondent (landlord) and whose veracity has not been questioned by the learned counsel for the appellants (tenants). It will, therefore, no be just and equitable to non-suit the respondents on the short ground that the respondent whose son needs the shop in dispute did not himself enter the witness box to say that the shop was so needed. .

5. It was also urged by the learned counsel for the appellants that Muhammad Bashir, who is alleged to be in need of the shop in dispute, 'had another shop available to him and, therefore, his requirement for the disputed shop was not bona fide. With a view to substantiating his contention, the learned counsel referred me to the appellants' evidence which consists of the statements of four witnesses, including an appellant. They deposed that Muhammad Bashir had a shop in Chak. No. 62-F and therefore, he did not need the shop in dispute which is situate in the town of Hasilpur. The two tribunals below, however, did not accept the plea raised by the appellants. They felt that as the shop in Chak No. 62-F was in the rural area and there too in the residential Thata of the respondents but the shop in dispute was in the bazar of Hasilpur town. he (Muhammad Bashir) was likely to have more comfort and better business in the latter than in the former. It was therefore, held by them that his need for the disputed shop, was genuine anal bona fide, this reasoning of the two lower tribunals is quite cogent. I am, therefore, not inclined to disturb the concurrent finding recorded by them.

6. No other ground was pressed by the learned counsel for the appellants, and since the contentions raised by hire have been found to be without force, the appeal is dismissed in limine. Appeal dismissed.