' Zahoor-ul-Haq and another have filed this second appeal to challenge an order of ejectment made against them.
2. The order relates to a shop owned by the respondents, Syed Hazoor Shah and two others. The appellants' ejectment has been ordered on the grounds that it is needed by the respondents for their own use and that they also want to reconstruct it.
3. The Rent Controller who heard the ejectment application filed by the respondents had upheld the pleas of personal need and reconstruction but had not ordered the ejectment of the appellants for the reasons that two of the respondents, namely, Syed Tanveer Hussain and Syed Tauqeer Hussain had not entered the witness box to say that they needed the shop for their own use, and that the plea of personal need and that of reconstruction were mutually destructive. The learned Rent Controller, therefore, dismissed the application. On this, the respondents went in appeal before an Additional District Judge who reversed the findings of learned Rent Controller and, while accepting the appeal, passed the order of ejectment against the appellants. They have, therefore, come up in second appeal to this Court.
4. Out of the three respondents, Syed Hazoor Shah is father of the other two respondents, namely, Syed Tanveer Hussain and Tauqeer Hussain. It was alleged by them that they wanted to do business in the disputed shop and that they did not own any other shop in the town of Okara, District Sahiwal, in which shop in question is situate. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that since the respondents other than Syed Hazoor Shah did not enter the witness box to make statement, their requirement could not be treated as bona fide. It is true that the respondents other than Hazoor Shah did not appear as witnesses but this is not fatal to their case. The personal need for which the appellants' ejectment was sought was not of those two respondents only who did not enter the witness box, but it was the need of Syed Hazoor Shah also who did appear as his own witness and made statement to the effect that the shop was needed by the respondents for doing business. Of the other two respondents Syed Tauqeer Hussain is a minor and his interest is being looked after by Syed Hazoor Shah respondent. In the circumstances, on the issue of personal need, an adverse finding cannot be recorded against the respondents merely for the reason that two of them did not appear as their own witnesses.
5. No other submission was made by the learned counsel for the appellants on the question of personal need.
6. As regards the issue relating to the reconstruction of the shop in question, learned counsel for the appellants urged that the respondents had not explained as to why the shop was required to be reconstructed and, thus, they had failed to establish that they required the shop in good faith for the purpose of reconstruction. It was conceded by the learned counsel for the respondents that the purpose of reconstruction had not been stated by the respondents. It is, therefore, not possible to hold that their requirement is bona fide and reasonable.
7. Resultantly., I reverse the findings of the learned appellate authority on the issue of reconstruction but affirm his finding on the issue of personal need. The order of ejectment on the ground of personal need alone is therefore, maintained and the with no order as to costs. The appellants are allowed a period of four months to vacate the disputed shop.