MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, On 29.9.1999 the respondents filed an application for ejectment of the appellant from a shop located in Rawalpindi Cantonment. According to the said -application, the shop was owned by the father of the respondents who let out the same to the appellant under a written lease agreement dated 20.12.1969 subject to payment of Rs. 600/- per month as rent. It was gifted to the respondents by their father by means of a registered document. The ejectment was sought primarily on the ground of bona fide requirement for personal use and occupation . The appellant proceeded to deny the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The ejectment petition was stated to be mala fide. Initially, a' preliminary issue as to existence of relationship of landlord and tenant was framed. The issue was answered in favour of the respondents all. 7.5.2002 and an ejectment order was passed. F.A.O. No. 103/2002 filed in this Court was allowed and the case was remanded back vide judgment dated 23.1. 2004 directing the Rent Controller to frame the issues on merits and to decide the ejectment . Consequently, following issues were framed:-
(1) Whether the petitioners required the suit property for their personal bona fide need?
(2) Whether the respondents have materially damaged the value and utility of the suit property?
O.P.P.
(3) Relief.
Evidence of the parties was recorded. Both the issues were found in favour of the respondents and an ejectment order was passed on 27.10.2005.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that since the gift was made without the prior approval of the Central Government and the approval was granted at a point of time after the institution of the ejectment petition, the ejectment petition as filed was not competent. Further contention is that in terms of Section 17(4)(b) of the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963, the shop could be got vacated only for the bona fide personal requirement of the landlords whereas one of the respondents had stated in the witness-box that he requires it for his son. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contends that the prior approval of Central Government was not necessary and, admittedly, it was granted later on. Further contention is that main requirement was of the two landlords as pleaded and proved on record.
3. I have gone through the records of the case, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. I have already reproduced above the respective pleadings of the parties. So far as the said first contention of the learned counsel is concerned, the same does not hold any water. It is by now well-settled that permission of Central Government or Cantonment Board is not necessary before transfer of old grant. Reference may be made to the case of Mst. Bhaghan and 2 others v. Sh.
Muhammad Latif and 2 others (PLD 1981 Lahore 146.). Admittedly, the post facto approval was ' granted by the Central Government to the said gift made in favour of the respondents by their father.
4. So far as the said second contention is concerned, as noted by me above, it has been pleaded in the application that the shop is required by the respondents for their personal use as they do not own any other shop and they intend to do business therein. The examination-in-chief of Muhammad Hanif respondent (PW.1) is in the form of an affidavit which is Ex.P.1. It has been stated that the respondents are jobless and do not have any property in Rawalpindi Cantonment and they need the shop in good faith for doing their own business. In his cross-examination he stated that he is jobless ever since the filing of the ejectment petition and he requires the shop bona fide for personal use and occupation. In response to a question he stated that a major son is also jobless. After a few questions; it was suggested to him and he admitted that he requires the shop for his son Shahzad Hanif who is aged 26 years and is jobless .After doing his F.A. He stated that is his son did his F.A. Four years ago. He made the statement on 16.12.2004 and the said point of time is after the institution of the. Ejectment petition. He denied a suggestion that he and his son are doing some job and that he does not require it for his need. However, through the courtesy of cross-examiner, he was made to state thereafter that the shop is required by the witness and his brother. Thus, upon an over all reading of the said statement, it turns out that the shop is, in fact, required by the two respondents whereas requirement of the son is relatable, to a point of time after the institution of the ejectment petition. The tenor of the statement is in perfect accord with the said provisions being relied upon by the learned counsel. At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellant contended with reference to the same statement that the other respondent has left the country. I find Opt it has come in the cross-examination that after the institution of the ejectment petitioner and two years thereafter, Rafiq the other respondent left for Canada and came after 6/7 months and thereafter he has left two months ago.
5. Nothing turns on the said circumstance as the Superior Judiciary of the country has consistently laid down that a landlord is not supposed to remain on the streets -till such time that his ejectment petition is finally adjudicated upon. Even if he leaves the country for doing some job in the said interregnum, the same does not derogate from his bona fide personal requirement if otherwise proved. There is not even an allegation that the respondents have any other shop in Rawalpindi Cantonment or for that matter in any other urban area. The shop was gifted to them in the year 1998 and the ejectment matter is pending since the year 1999. There is no evidence on record that the respondents are doing any business or some other job.
6. Having, thus, examined the records, I do not find any case being made out for interfering with the impugned, orders. The F.A.O. Is accordingly dismissed but without any orders as to costs.
7. The records of the learned Rent Controller be remitted.