' FAISAL ARAB, J. The petitioner, who is tenant has filed this petition against the concurrent findings of both the courts below. The respondent No,1 filed rent case seeking eviction of petitioner inter alia on the ground of personal need. The petitioner contested the rent application by taking the plea that the respondent No,1 along with her family resides in USA and therefore she is not entitled to seek eviction on the ground of personal need. It was also contended that the respondent No,1 is not the owner of the premises in question. The Rent Controller however, ordered eviction of the petitioner. The petitioner filed Rent Appeal, which also met the same fate, hence this petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that when the ownership was denied, the Rent Controller ought to have framed issue in that regard and have given findings thereon. It is next submitted by petitioner's counsel that the ownership was based on unregistered document and in order to establish ownership, beyond reasonable doubt, party has to first approach Civil Court and seek declaration in that regard. In support of this contention, he has relied upon 1986 CLC 2862, 1986 CLC 1613, 1985 CLC 2085, 2001 SCM R 1434, 1987 CLC 775 and 1991 SCM R 1376. With regard to the ground of personal need, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in order to establish the ground of personal need, it was incumbent that the landlord should personally come in the witness box for the purpose of cross-examination, but in the present case the respondent No,1 did not herself step into the witness box and lead evidence through attorney and therefore the plea of personal need ought to have been rejected. In support of this contention, he has relied upon PLD 2001 Kar. 238, 1992 CLC 2307 and 1990 M LD 1009.
3. In the cross-examination of attorney of the respondent No,1, it has come on record that the premises in question stands in the joint names of the father-in-law of the respondent No,1 and his brother, who subsequently gifted the same to respondent No,
1. This court when asked from the counsel of the petitioner as to whom the petitioner is paying the rent, he very candidly conceded that the petitioner is paying the rent to the attorney of the respondent No,1, which clearly established that the petitioner recognizes the respondent No,1 as his landlady. In spite of such clear cut admission, the petitioner should not have denied the ownership of the respondent No,
1. Where a tenant is admittedly inducted by a person and that person's interests are transferred to any other person by way of transfer of title, then the denial of title of the successor-in-interest of the landlord by a tenant entitles for his outright eviction. It is only where the tenant has not paid the rent to the person, who is claiming to be the landlord or to his predecessor-in-interest and in such cases also where reasonable doubt is created as to the ownership only then the Rent Controller is bound to give findings with regard to the relationship of landlord and tenant or direct the party to first approach the Civil Court in order to seek declaration of title. In the case in hand, admittedly the petitioner was paying rent to the respondent No,l's attorney and respondent No,1 was claiming ownership, then the denial of relationship of landlord and tenant was contumacious warranting outright eviction.
4. With regard to the personal need, it is not incumbent upon the owner of premises, who is not in Pakistan, to come to Pakistan and then file case on the ground of personal need. The person who owns premises in Pakistan and for the time being is living abroad, if he wants his own house for his personal need, then he can file rent case seeking eviction of tenant through his attorney. It is not necessary for him, who is for the time being living abroad to lead evidence personally. If the tenant succeeds to bring any material on record to show that the need of the landlord was not bona fide only in such circumstances the eviction can be refused, otherwise if the bona fide is established the landlord becomes entitling for the relief of eviction.
5. Foregoing are the reasons for my short order dated 16-2-2010, whereby this petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.