1990 PLP 1297 (CLC)

Muhammad Ameen petitioner (landlord) filed,an ejectment petition against Muhammad Younis respondent from shops bearing Nos.8/220, 221, 222 situate in Jander Bazar, Sialkot occupied by Muhammad Younis on a monthly rent of Rs.75 on the ground of personal need. According to him he was in bona fide need of the said shops for his son namely Badar‑ur‑Rehman and Attique‑ur Rehman who were not in occupation of any other shop in Sialkot. He also levelled allegations of default and subletting against the respondents which were later on not pressed and mainly the question of personal need was trial by the Courts below. After recording evidence the learned Rent Controller by his order dated 29‑11‑1984 accepted the ejectment petition and ordered ejectment of Muhammad Younis respondent. He came to the conclusion that from the statements of Muhammad Ameen and his sons their bona fide personal need stood established. Muhammad Younis respondent filed an appeal and the learned Addl. District Judge, Sialkot by his judgment dated 2‑2‑1986 reversed the finding of the learned Rent Controller by holding that the landlord had failed to establish ' that he required the premises in question in good faith for the occupation of his sons and dismissed the ejectment petition. Hence this Constitutional petition on behalf of the landlord.

2. It is contended that finding of the learned Addl. District Judge is against the weight of evidence and it was an admitted position that the petitioner and his sons for whose benefit the disputed shops were required were not in occupation of any other shop in Sialkot suitable for their needs. The statements of the petitioner and his sons namely Badar‑ur‑Rehman and Attique‑ur‑Rehman remained unshaken in cross‑examination. The solitary witness produced by the respondent in his support was an interested witness. The learned appellate Court wrongly inferred that the petitioner wanted to sell the shops in question. According to the petitioners' evidence he had two wives and 14 children. Badar ur‑Rehman A.W.1 and Attique‑ur‑Rehman A.W. 2 for whom the shops in question were required categorically stated that they were not occupying any other shop in Sialkot suitable for their need. Attique‑ur‑Rehman stated that he wanted to run business of electric appliances in the said shop for which he had purchased the necessary machinery. In cross‑examination he stated that behind the shops in question factory belonging to his father was situated which was run by one Nazir. The respondent could not rebut the above evidence or show that the petitioner or his sons were also occupying other shops in the same urban area on the other hand R.W.1 who appeared on his behalf admitted in cross-examination that the petitioner or his sons did not own any other shop in Sialkot City. The respondent also admitted this fact. In the face of these circumstances, there was nothing to doubt the bona fide personal need of the petitioner. 1 do not agree with the observation of the learned appellate Court that the advertisement got published by the petitioner in the Press dated 10‑9‑1984 recoils adversely on the bona fide personal need of the petitioner. There is no evidence to the effect that he struck bargain with anybody about the sale of the said property. He was seeking ejectment of the respondent since 1978 and it is possible that in disappointment he might have decided to sell away the' property and buy some other with that money for the business of his sons. No mala fides are, therefore, proved on the part of the petitioner. Sufficient evidence is available on the record in support of the bona fide personal need of the petitioner. The reasons given by the learned appellate Court in rejecting plea of personal need are not tenable and the Appellate Court proceeded to discard evidence of landlord on grounds hot recognized by law. Resultantly, the writ petition is accepted, impugned order is set aside and declared to be passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The order of the learned Rent Controller directing ejectment of the respondent shall revive and take its course. In order to enable the respondent to make alternate arrangement for his business he is allowed four months time to vacate and hand over the possession to the petitioner. Parties are left to bear their own costs. AA./M‑2021/L Petition accepted.