This is a second appeal against an order for the ejectment of the appellant, Muhammad Shafi, from a house owned by the respondent, Bashir Ahmad and another.
2. The aforesaid order was made on an application, under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, filed by the respondents. In that application it was alleged by them that the appellant had committed default in payment of rent, that they needed the house for personal use and that the appellant had caused damage to the house and impaired its value and utility. The appellant refuted the above allegations and raised certain objections whereupon the following issues were framed by the Rent Controller who heard the application:
(1) Whether the notice served on the respondent by the petitioner is valid and in accordance with law?
(2) Whether the petition has not been filed by all the landlords of the property in dispute? If so to what effect?
(3) Whether the respondent has made improvement of the property in dispute. If so to what extent and with what effect?
(4) Whether the petition is not maintainable in view of preliminary objection No. 8 of reply in ejectment petition?
(5) Whether the respondent has committed wilfull default in the payment of monthly rent as alleged in the petition.
(6) Whether the petitioners require the property in dispute reasonably and in good faith for their own use and occupation?
(7) Whether the respondent has damaged the property in dispute that has impaired its value and utility?
(8) Relief.
3. The learned Rent Controller decided Issues Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 in favour of the respondents and Issues Nos. 5 and 7 against them. Since the respondents had won on issue No. 6 relating to personal need, the learned Rent Controller ordered the ejectment of the appellant. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the learned Rent Controller the appellant firstly went in appeal before the Additional District Judge but as it did not succeed, he preferred the present appeal to this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the house in dispute was purchased by the two respondents, namely, Bashir Ahmad and Mst. Shamim Akhtar, but notice under section 13-A of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 was served on him by Bashir Ahmad respondent only and as such it was not a valid notice. This notice was relevant only to the plea of default raised by the respondents but as it has not been upheld by the two tribunals below, there is no need to go into the question of the validity of the notice. The appellant's ejectment has been ordered on the ground of personal need of the respondents and since the service of the said notice is not a pre-condition to seeking ejectment on that ground, even if the notice is held to be invalid it will be of no avail to the appellant. I will, therefore, not examine the validity of the notice in dispute.
5. The only question which deserves attention in this case is in regard to the personal need of the respondents. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the respondents had not been able to establish that they required the house in dispute, in good faith, for their own use. The two lower tribunals have, however, recorded a concurrent finding that the respondents needed this house to meet their bona fide personal requirements. Their finding is supported by the evidence on the record. Appearing as witness, it was deposed by one of the respondents that at present they are putting up in the house of their mother but as it is not sufficient to meet the requirement of all those living in that house, they purchased the house in dispute for their personal occupation. This was also made known to the appellant by means of notice, Exh. A/4 which was served on him, under section 13-A of the said Ordinance, after the purchase of the house by them. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the house now occupied by the respondents also belonged to them but he could not refer to me to any evidence in this behalf. 1, therefore, see no good reason to differ with the two tribunals below who have found that the respondents needed the house in dispute, in good faith, for personal use.
6. Since there is no force in this appeal, it is dismissed In limine. The appellant is, however, allowed one month's time to vacate the house in dispute.