' MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.--- The ejectment petition filed by respondent's side against the appellant seeking his eviction from the shop in question, has been allowed by the learned Rent Controller vide order dated 30-6-2008; the appellant's appeal has failed, which was dismissed by the learned Appellate Court vide order dated 20-12-2008.
2 . Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Muhammad Abdullah, the father of respondents Nos.3 to 6 and husband of respondent No,7 instituted an ejectment petition against the appellant inter alia, on the ground of personal requirement of his son Faisal Abdullah; during the pendency of the petition, he demised and Faisal Abdullah appeared as a witness in support of his personal requirement; he also examined AW-1 in this regard. The respondents' side also produced evidence and upon the conclusion of the trial, the learned Rent Controller as mentioned above while giving finding on the issue of personal need passed the eviction order, which has been affirmed by the learned Court of appeal. Hence this second appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that respondent No,3 while appearing as A.W.2 has stated that his father has demised and he needs the disputed property for providing support to his three young brothers and a widow (mother); this was not the case set out originally and thus this being fresh cause of action either amendment in the ejectment petition should have been sought or a new petition in the changed circumstances should have been filed and in any case, on account of the above deficiency, the impugned orders could not be passed against the appellant.
It is also mentioned that according to the settled law that no one can be allowed to set out a case in evidence beyond the scope of his pleadings; the bona fide requirement must not be evasively asserted rather must be concretely proved by establishing reasonableness and bona fide of the landlord; this is lacking in the instant case. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the cases reported as Muhammad Atique v. Muhammad Hanif Khan 1996 SCM R 1260, Dr. Ubaidur Raza Khan. v. Mrs. Saghera Bano and another 1994 CLC 1302, Haji Abdullah and 10 others v. Yahya Bakhtiar PLD 2001 SC 158 Sakha Ullah v. Mst. Tahir Almas alias Tahira Shabbir and another 2001 CLC 1641 and Anisur Rehman v. Mst. Sharifa Khatoon and another 1986 CLC 448.
4. Heard. No change in the case has been brought on account of the demise of the father (the original ejectment petitioner in the case),as was initially set out; the need propounded is that of Faisal Abdullah, who while appearing as A,W,2 has only passingly referred that his father has demised leaving behind three sons and a widow but it is not his case that due to changed circumstances (the demise of his father) to support the family he specially needs the property, rather from the cross-examination of Faisal, it is clear that though when he made the statement, he was an employee of the Samsung, but he wants to do his own business. It is fundamental right of every person/citizen to do his business, for the better earning and livelihood and improve his financial resources, thus if the person in service wants to do the business in his owned property with the above object, it cannot be held that such service/employment should have any reflection upon his need. It is settled law, see Fazal Asim and another v. Tariq Mahmood and another PLD 1982 SC 218 that the landlord or the child for whose need the non-residential property is required, is not supposed to sit till awaiting the eviction of the property, which may takes years, as in the instant case, the ejectment petition was instituted on 21-10-2003 and yet by lapses of six years, the respondents' side has not been able to achieve the goal; besides, as per the case reported as Muhammad Shoaib Alam and others v. Muhammad Iqbal 2000 SCM R 903, the solitary statement the ejectment petitioner/land lord is good enough to establish his bona fide and reasonable need, who is even not required to give particulars and details of his business or the financial. See Gohar Rashid v. Fazal Hasan Mazhar PLD 1995 Lah.
469. It is rather for the tenant to establish on the record the facts/factors, which militates against the bona fide of the landlord in this behalf and to establish the dishonesty of the purpose; this however, is conspicuously lacking in the instant case, particularly when respondent No,3 has unequivocally stated that he would occupy the property himself for his business and in case it is not so done, he shall give it back to the appellant; even otherwise, there is sufficient check available under section 13(4) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, wherein it has been provided that, if the landlord pursuant to the eviction order on personal requirement does not occupy the property within one month of the date of obtaining the possession or relet the property, the evicted tenant may apply to the learned Rent Controller for an order directing that he shall restored possession of such property and the Controller shall make an order accordingly. Anyhow, the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two Courts below are neither infirm on account of misreading and non-reading nor for misapplication/no application of the proper law, resultantly, such cannot be interfered in the second appeal as it is not established that the decisions are contrary to the law, therefore, this appeal has no merits and the same is hereby dismissed.