' The facts giving rise to this second appeal are that the appellant, Mahmood-ul-Hasan made an application for ejectment of the respondent, Muhammad Jameel from a shop on the ground that it was personally needed by him. His application was allowed by a Rent Controller and the respondent was directed to vacate the disputed shop. Thereupon the respondent went in appeal before an Additional District Judge who accepted his appeal, reversed the finding of the learned Rent Controller and dismissed the ejectment application of the appellant. He has, therefore, come up in second appeal to this Court.
2. The precise reason for which the learned Additional District Judge had non-suited the appellant was that he required the shop not for himself or his children but for the children of his brother who had died. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that with a view to feeding the destitute widow and orphan children of his deceased brother the appellant planned to run the shop himself, with the help of a salesman, but his plea was not correctly understood by the learned Additional District Judge. In this connection, he invited my attention to his following averment in the ejectment application :- {{URDU TEXT}} ' Learned counsel for the appellant maintained that it was also in the evidence of his four witnesses, including the appellant, that the appellant wanted to get the shop for the aforesaid purpose but the evidence was misread by the learned Additional District Judge.
3. In reply, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the appellant was a Government servant and, therefore, could not run the shop himself. He also submitted that the appellant had not been able to establish that he would do business at the shop through an employee.
4. It is not denied that the brother of the appellant had died leaving behind a widow and some children. It is also not the contention of the respondent that they are earning hands. The plea that the appellant required the shop for the sake of the wife and chi laden of his deceased brother is not an afterthought inasmuch as it finds mention in the ejectment petition itself. The evidence supporting his plea consists of the statements of the appellant (A. W. 1), Ferzand An (A. W. 2). And Abdul Aziz (A. W. 4). That the appellant intends to run the shop him by employing somebody is clear from his following depositions :- {{URDU TEXT}} ' The above statement of Muhammad Akbar is not in tune with the testimony of three other witnesses of the appellant. It was, however deposed by him also that the appellant is providing maintenance to the widow and children of his brother. His statement that the children of his brother might left out the shop is neither here nor there because it I not even the case of the respondent that the appellant intends to let out the shop to someone else after getting it vacated by the respondent It can hardly be denied that the appellant is the best person to state as to what he intends to do with the shop is question. In the circumstances t is not possible to discard his (appellant's) testimony and that If his two other witnesses in regard to his future plans merely for he reason that the statement of one of his witnesses, namely, Muhammad Akbar is not on all fours with their deposition. What I feel is that view of the over whelming evidence of the appellant in support of its plea that he wanted to do business through an employee, to need the widow and children of his deceased brother, the statement if his witness Muhammad Akbar that he planned somewhat differently )ales into insignificance.
5. There is no good rebuttal of the appellant's evidence. The respondent examined three witnesses out of whom Muhammad Ilyas R. W. 1) did not know whether the appellant required the shop with view to providing maintenance to the widow and children of his another. This is also true of his second witness, namely. Amir Afzal R.W. 2). Muhammad Jameel respondent appeared as R. W. 3 and stated that he did not know that the appellant was responsible for maintaining his brother's widow and children. He admitted that the appellant had mother shop in which he was doing business through an employee.
6. In view of what has gone above, I am inclined to agree with he learned Rent Controller that the appellant personally needs the shop in dispute for the purpose of earning livelihood for the widow and children of his brother who have since become his dependents. He wants run the shop himself through an employee. Admittedly, he is already running a shop in the like manner. It has been unanimously stated by all the witnesses of the appellant, including Muhammad Akbar, that it is the headache of the appellant to feed the widow and children of his deceased brother but being a petty financial he 2nds it difficult to provide maintenance to them. It is not the respondent's case that they or anyone of them is an earning hand. I, therefore, on issue of personal need of the appellant, reverse the finding of the earned Additional District Judge and affirm that of the learned Rent controller.
7. In result, 1 accept the appeal with costs, set aside the order of learned Additional District Judge and direct that the respondent all vacate the shop in dispute within four months.