1. SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.---Through these petitions, the petitioners have called in question concurrent findings of the Courts below, whereby the ejectment application filed by the respondents on the ground of personal bona fide need, default on account of non-payment of water, conservancy charges and addition alteration impairing value and utility of the premises was allowed.
2. ' Briefly stated the facts, the respondents on 22-1-2001, filed two ejectment applications bearing Nos.509 and 510 of 2001 against M/s. Tahir Ahmed and Nasir Ahmed, tenants in respect of Shops Nos.10 and 11 in a building constructed on Plot bearing No,MR-1-146 on the ground that the respondents being well versed with the business of textile and knitwear, herbal, cosmetics, wooden furniture and handicraft intend to establish a show room for their partnership namely M/s. Wasatch Pakistan Trading. It was averred that the respondents are in possession of some shops and offices in the building and against some tenants they have initiated ejectment proceedings for the reason that the entire building is required by the, respondents to establish their show room, the respondents along with ejectment application filed architectural drawings showing the proposed changes to be brought in the building for establishing show room. It was further stated that both the petitioners viz. Tahir Ahmed and Nisar Ahmed being brothers have removed intervening wall between Shops Nos.10 and 11 without the written permission of the landlord which has imperial material value and utility of the premises. Lastly it was stated that the petitioners despite specific demand dated 17-11-2000 have failed to pay water and conservancy charges since July 1997 and therefore, are liable to be evicted from the shops in their possession.
3. 'In defence the petitioners denied personal need of the respondents on the ground that the respondent No,1 is an aged lady of about 75 years, whereas respondents Nos.2 and 3 are permanent residents of USA and therefore, the ground of personal need is made up. As to the nonpayment of water and conservancy charges it was stated that the rent of the demised premises was Rs,399 inclusive of all charges and was paid regularly, as to the receipt dated 8-5- 1994 reflecting payment of Rs,40 per month as Tax it was submitted that it was an old receipt. It was further stated that no water or sewerage connection exists in the shops, therefore, the question of payment of such charges does not arise. As to the addition and alteration it was submitted that the intervening wall was demolished with the permission of the respondent's father.
4. ' On the basis of the pleading and evidence led by the respective parties the learned Rent Controller allowed both the ejectment applications on all three counts, whereas the appeals filed by the petitioners against the order of the Rent Controller bearing F.R.As. Nos.84 and 85 of 2006 of District South were dismissed.
5. ' Syed Jamil Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the respondents being owners .Of buildings constructed on Plots No,MR-1-146, MR-1147, MR-1-148 and MR-1-149, however the respondents by pleading that they have no other premises concealed their ownership in respect of other three buildings have disentitled themselves to claim shops situated in building constructed on plot No, MR-1-146 on the ground of personal bona fide need. It was next contended that the ground of personal bona fide need is also made up for the reason that no structural changes as envisaged by the respondents through architectural drawings can take place as the building where the demised premises is situated has been declared as heritage building. It was further contended that in the 'cross examination it has come on record that two of the respondents are settled in U.S.A whereas the third respondent is a 75 years lady and further that the respondents are in possession of the entire building except these two shops, therefore, their demand for these two shops is not based in good faith. In support of this proposition reliance was placed on the case of Mst. Shirin Bai v. Famous Art Printers (Pvt.) Ltd. (2006 SCM R 117). It was lastly contended that the suppression of material fact by the respondents as to their ownership of other buildings as well as having in their possession the entire building except these two shops has disentitled them to maintain their claim on personal bona fide need. The proposition was supported by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Muhammad Atiq v. Muhammad Hanif Khan (1996 SCM R 1260).
6. ' On the question of default in payment of water and conservancy charges, it was contended by the learned counsel that since it is an admitted position that neither any wash room nor any tap is available on the ground floor despite water and conservancy charges were demanded. Per learned counsel the rent in respect of each shop being consolidated rent inclusive of all charges, therefore, the demand was unjustified and frivolous.
7. ' Regarding impairing the value and utility of the premises it was pleaded that the intervening wall between the two shops was removed after obtaining oral permission from the late father of the respondents. It was therefore, pleaded that the concurrent findings of the court below are based on misreading and non-reading of evidence therefore are liable to be set aside.
8. ' On the other hand Mr. Ali Mumtaz learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the respondents in their ejectment application have spelled out their need in detail and have not concealed any material facts. It was contended that the case of respondent right from the beginning was that the entire building is required for their personal bona fide use in order to establish show rooms to accommodate their business of textile and knitwear, herbal, cosmetics, wooden furniture and handicraft etc. It was submitted that respondents have spelled out in their ejectment application that they are in possession of some shops and offices in their building and for remaining they have initiated ejectment proceedings. It was contended, that by the time the respondents entered the witness box all tenements were got vacated except the two in question and therefore, the respondents made such admission which by no stretch of imagination be termed as concealment or contradiction. Learned counsel further pleaded that the respondents have placed on record architectural drawings reflecting change to be made in the building in order to make the building to meet the needs of respondents. It was contended that, respondents have not only placed on record debit advice, letter of credits, invoices, packing lists, but have, also placed on record a registered partnership deed between the respondents Nos.1 to 4 under the name and style of "Wasatch Pakistan Trading" in order to show their export and justifying their need for the entire building. It was further contended that it has come on record that the two petitioners settled in USA are also conducting business under the name and style of "Wasatch" in U.S.A in the circumstances the bona fide of the respondents cannot be doubted, notwithstanding the fact that two of the respondents are settled in USA or the third one is 75 years old, for the reason that their presence to run the business is not necessary.
9. ' As to the contention of Mr. Syed Jamil Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners regarding the declaration of the subject building as "National Heritage", it was contended that the respondents have no intention whatsoever to change the facade of the building and the internal addition, alteration are, not restricted by any law. Learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of this court in the, case of Muhammad Shamim v. Mrs. Zaheer (2004 CLC 1985) and contended that all questions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners are comprehensively answered in the said judgment being earlier raised by one of the tenants of the respondent in the same building. As to non-payment of water and conservancy charges, learned counsel by referring to a demand dated 17-11-2000 in respect of such charges contended that despite such demand the petitioners have failed to pay such charges therefore are liable to be evicted from the premises in their possession.
10. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have perused the record available before me.
11. A perusal of the ejectment application, affidavit-in-evidence and cross-examination of the respondent's witness reflects that the respondents have consistently maintained their version regarding their need. It appears to be the case of the respondents that they have a partnership business under the name and style of "Wasatch Pakistan Trading" and are exporting textiles and knitwear, herbal, cosmetics, wooden furniture and handicraft and to accommodate such business require the entire building including the shop in possession of the petitioners. The respondents have produced documentary evidence to show that they have been exporting these items to USA where two of the respondents are carrying business in the same name. It is nowhere controverted by the petitioners that the respondents are not carrying out the business as pleaded or that two of the respondents are not running business in America in the same name. The c petitioners in the entire cross-examination have asked no question regarding sufficiency or insufficiency of the premises already in possession of the respondents nor any question was suggested that the premises in question is not required by the respondents though suggestions were made that the application was mala fide or not in good faith. As to the contention of Mr. Jamil that the respondents have concealed material facts and therefore are not entitled to the relief on the ground of personal bona fide need in my view is not correct, for the simple reason that it is not necessary for an applicant to give the detail of his properties while filing an ejectment application against his tenant on the ground of personal bona fide need unless such property/properties are in his/her occupation or use or in occupation or use of person for who's requirement such application is filed. In the instant case though the respondents are owners of other three buildings but it was not the case of the petitioners that they had in their occupation or use any premises in D the said building. Therefore there appears to be no suppression of facts to attract the dicta laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Muhammad Atique (Supra).
12. 'As to the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the building having been declared as heritage therefore, the respondents could not carry out changes also appears to be without force for the simple reason that in their written statement the petitioners have themselves stated that earlier ground floor of the building consisted of one shop and one Farooq Nabi was carrying business therein under the name and style of Capri Electric Comp? Ay who created various small shops out of that one shop. In the circumstances, I am convinced that the need of the landlord is honest and the dicta laid down by the apex court in the case of Mst. Shirin Bai (Supra) is not attracted in the circumstances of the instant case, therefore, I do not see any reason to upset the concurrent findings of the Court below regarding personal bona fide need.
13. ' As to the question of non-payment of water and conservancy charges the respondents have produced receipt which reflect that beside monthly rental the petitioners were paying water and conservancy charges. The respondents further created demand vide its letter dated 17th November 2000 for Rs,9,645 which was not paid by the petitioners though in the cross examination the petitioners have suggested that the demand is managed but has nowhere suggested that the tenants were not paying water and conservancy charges as evident from various rent receipts produced on record (pages Nos.231 to 239). In the circumstances, I do not see any reason to upset the concurrent findings on this issue as well. On the question of impairment it appears to be an admitted position that, intervening wall between shops Nos.10 and 11 has been removed by the petitioners however per learned counsel for the petitioners these walls were removed after obtaining permission from the predecessorin-interest of the respondent which is denied by the respondents. However, there is nothing on record to show that the removal of these walls have impaired the value and utility of the premises even the case of the respondent is that after taking the possession of all the shops on the ground floor they want to convert it into one show room and for that purpose the removal of internal walls was contemplated. Even otherwise it has come in the cross examination that before letting out the shops to various tenants the ground floor comprised of only one shop consequently, the findings of the trial Court on the question of impairment cannot sustain.
14. ' These are the reasons for the short order dated 20-11-2008 whereby these petitions were dismissed.