' JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.--- This second appeal filed by the appellants-tenants impugns the order of the First Appellate Court, dated 8-7-2004, whereby the learned Rent Controller's order, dated 3- 5-2003 dismissing the ejectment petition of the respondent-landlord, has been set aside and the appellants have been ordered to be ejected from the disputed shop.
2. The facts of the case have been duly noted in the appellate judgment and need not, therefore, be reproduced in extenso.
3. At the very outset, I need to note that the reply to the ejectment petition, which was filed by the appellant, clearly shows the falsity of the same and the lack of good faith on the part of the appellants. In para.2 of the preliminary objection, they took up the plea that the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exit between the parties. In paragraph 6 on merits, they pleaded that they were mortgagees of the property. However, in paragraph 3, they conceded that they were in occupation of the property as tenants under the respondent-landlord. These contradictory positions could not be reconciled before me by learned counsel for the appellants. The learned Appellate Court has rightly held that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties.
4. There is a document (Exh.R.2) on the record , which was pressed by the appellants as the mainstay to their defence. Learned counsel for the appellants also relied on the same to contend that the appellants were not defaulters. I have considered the contents of the document, which does not, in any manner, raise the inference that the appellants were mortgagees and not tenants in the property. In fact, the wording of Exh.R.2 establishes that the appellants were tenants. It merely states that the respondent shall not demand rent until he repays a sum of Rs,1,00,000 received by him by way of loan from the appellants.
5. In the foregoing circumstances, the learned Appellate Court held that Exh.R.2 represented a separate loan transaction creating distinct A rights between the parties arising therefrom. The relationship of landlord and tenant and the obligations arising as a result thereof remained un- effected by the aforesaid document.
6. Here it may be added that the respondent also urged his own need and the need of his son as a ground of seeking ejectment of the appellants. He appeared in the witness-box and testified that although there were other shops owned by him, the same were at the back and were not of use to him. The respondent was fully entitled to select the B shop or shops most suitable for himself and his son. The learned Rent Controller held that the respondent had vacillated in his testimony while deposing as to the availability of other shops owned by him. This however, has no material bearing on the case because the respondent had categorically asserted his personal need and the suitability of the disputed shop for his purposes. The ground of personal need, therefore, stood IC established.
7. In the foregoing circumstances, I find no reason to interfere in the impugned appellate order.
However, since the appellants are running a business in the disputed shop, they are allowed two months from the date of this order, to vacate the same.