2000 PLP 18 (YLR)

S.M. Nooruddin and 9 others v. Saga Printers 1998 SCMR 2119 rel. (c) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.13‑‑‑Bona fide personal need of landlord and impairing the value of utility of property by tenant‑‑‑Landlord successfully proved both the grounds mentioned in ejectment petition‑‑‑Rent Controller ordered the ejectment of the tenant and appeal before the Lower Appellate Court was also dismissed‑‑‑Effect‑‑‑Where orders of both the Courts below were based on the evidence on record it could not be said that Courts had misread such evidence. Ch. Muzammil Khan for Appellants. The respondents filed a petition for ejectment of the appellants from a shop in Urban area of Faisalabad, inter alia, on the ground that it is required in good faith for personal use and occupation of the respondents and alleging impairment of its value and utility. The petition was contested and amongst others, the following issues were framed:‑‑‑ 2‑B: Whether the respondents have damaged the premises in question and impaired its value and utility? OPA 2‑C. Whether the petitioners require the premises in question in good faith for their personal use and occupation? OPA The learned Rent Controller recorded the evidence of the parties and vide, order, dated 28‑2‑1998 allowed the ejectment petition. An appeal filed by the appellants was heard by a learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad, who dismissed the same on 7‑6‑1999. 2. Learned counsel contends that it was proved on record that the respondents own extensive property in the same urban area and that they had not disclosed the said fact in the ejectment petition. To support his contention, carried counsel relies on the cases of Messrs Choudhary Brothers Ltd., Sialkot v. The Jaranwala Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Jaranwala and others (1968 SCMR 804), Arvin Yousuf Nizami v. Rashid Rayon Mills, Karachi (PLD 1971 Karachi 505) and Muhammad Mirza v. Muhammad Hussain Ghani (PLD 1983 Karachi 162). 3. Record had been sent for and is available. I have gone through the same with the assistance of the learned counsel. I find that although it stands admitted that the respondents own several shops in Faisalabad, but nothing turns on this fact. Under the law a landlord is required to explain only the possession of such non‑residential property, of which he is owner in possession. On the other hand in case he owns more than one non‑residential property and the same stands rented out, the choice lies with the landlord to seek eviction of any of such properties. In this view of the matter, the respondents were not required by law either to make a disclosure in the ejectment petition regarding the other property owned by them or to give any explanation for the same. Reference be made to the case of Abdul Aziz and another v. Muhammad Ibrahim (PLD 1977 SC 442). So far as the merits of the findings recorded by the learned Courts below are concerned, I find that one of the landlords/respondents, Muhammad Anwar, entered the witness‑box as A. W. 11 and stated on oath that the shop is required by them for their bona fide personal use as they intend to start business of' agency of grain. Learned counsel has taken me through the cross‑examination of this witness and I find that nothing derogatory to the said averment has been brought out in the cross- examination. So far as rebuttal is concerned, the same is absolutely non‑existent. In rebuttal Sh Abdul Majeed appeared as RW.1 and he has not uttered a word regarding the said Issue No.2‑C. Needless to state here that by now it is a well‑settled proposition that for determination of the question of bona fide requirement, the most important piece of evidence is the statement of landlord himself and in case the same is not shattered in the cross‑examination and is not otherwise rebutted by the appellants, the said statement by itself is sufficient to sustain the positive findings on the issues of bona fide personal requirement. Reference may be made to the case of S.M. Nooruddin and 9 others v. Saga Printers (1998 SCMR 2119). 4. Regarding the matter of impairment A.W.I1 stated that the appellants have installed some water‑taps on the roofs of the shop and the value and utility of the shop has been impaired thereby and it has come to a dilapidated condition. On the other hand, the solitary witness R.W.1 appearing for the appellants has opted to remain silent regarding the said allegation made on oath by the landlord AW.11. In this state of evidence, the conclusion arrived at by the two learned Courts below that the value of the building has been impaired because of the said act attributed to the appellants, could have been arrived at on the basis of the evidence on record and it cannot be said that the learned Courts below have misread the evidence on record, while arriving at the said findings. Thus, no question of law arises, which needs be decided in this S.A.O. which is dismissed in limine. The appellants to hand over vacant possession of the shop to the respondents on or before 31‑10‑1999. Q.M.H./A‑161/L. Appeal dismissed.