' IJAZ-UL-AHSAN, J.--- By this order, I propose to dispose of S.A.O. No.150 of 2009 and S.A.O. No.151 of 2009 as common questions of law and facts are involved in these appeals.
2. The appeals are directed against judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge at Sialkot on 20-6-2009, whereby the appellants were evicted from the premises under their occupation as tenants. The appellants were in possession of Shops Nos.4 and 5 in a premises which was initially owned by the father of respondent No.1 and after his demise had devolved upon the respondents. It is common ground between the parties that it was an oral tenancy and no written document in this regard was produced before the learned trial Court. Although various grounds were taken in the suit for ejectment filed by the respondent No.1 including default, damage to the premises, expiry of lease period etc. The main ground for seeking eviction was bona fide personal need of the landlord.
3. The suits were contested. The learned trial Court framed as many as eight issues. On behalf of the respondents, respondent No.1 appeared as a witness in support of the case and produced Ali Akbar as P.W.2. The petitioner appeared as a defence witness and produced five other witnesses including the post man to establish that there was no default and that the premises in question was not required by the landlord on account of personal need.
4. The issue of default was not proved before the learned trial Court. It was not seriously contested in the appeal either. In support of the issue relating to personal need, respondent No.1 stated that two of his brothers were working in Lahore and Kuwait, and the family was running a business of electronics. They wished to set up a large show room for electronics by combining four shops. They had already got two shops vacated and needed the other two (subject matter of the present appeals) to complete the show room where the respondent's brothers could set up their electronics business on their return. Respondent No.1 was cross-examined. The petitioners could not bring anything on record to convince the learned subordinate Courts that the shops in question were not required by way of personal need. The only material placed on record was certain documents relating to suit filed in 2004 by respondent No.1 against some other tenant relating to some other shop, which had been withdrawn in terms of a compromise where under the tenant had agreed to increase the rent by 100%. On the basis of the said record it was argued that the suit against the appellants was also a device to enhance rent and that there was no bona fide personal need. The said evidence did not find favour with the learned lower Courts who held that the said fact did not preclude the respondents from filing a suit for possession/ejectment at a subsequent stage, if there was a bona fide personal need.
5. The other issue raised by the appellants was that the shop in question belonged to all legal heirs of the original landlord, which included three brothers and there sisters. It was, therefore, argued that without impleading all the said legal heirs, the respondent No.1 alone could not maintain the suit. The learned lower Courts found that the appellants had been paying rent to respondent No.1 which was evident from the rent payment receipts produced by the appellants themselves.
Therefore, having accepted respondent No.1 as their landlord, they could not deny his right to file the suit. Even otherwise, one of the landlords can maintain a suit for ejectment of a tenant unless separate tenancy agreements are found to have been executed and the tenants have been paying rent to the landlord separately, which was not the case here. As such the said plea of the appellants was not accepted by the learned subordinate Courts.
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has contended that the learned subordinate Courts did not properly appreciate the effect of Exh.D.1 to Exh.D.8. These documents related to record of the case which had been filed by respondent No.1 against another tenant about five years ago and was settled by way of a compromise. The learned counsel submits that the said documents established that the suits against the petitioners had been filed to harass them and to pressurize them to increase the amount of rent payable by them.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record with his assistance.
The learned counsel has not been able to show anything from the record that the respondent No.1 had demanded enhancement of rent at any stage. Even otherwise the suit which was settled about five years ago cannot be used for all times to come in the future to defeat proceedings for eviction of a tenant on the ground of personal need. Each case has to be decided on its own merits. A tenant cannot be allowed to force a landlord to let him use the leased premises for an indefinite period notwithstanding landlord's personal need.
8. The other point argued by the learned counsel for the appellant is that there was nothing by way of evidence on record to establish bona fide personal need. As discussed above, respondent No.1 had categorically stated in his statement that he wanted to establish a show room for electronics by combining four shops, two of which he had already got vacated and he needed the other two shops to set up his business where his brothers- could join him in running the show room of electronics. This evidence could not be disproved or shaken in cross-examination. The evidence as well as the other facts and circumstances relevant to the issue in question were taken into consideration by the learned lower Courts, who found the evidence believable and reliable enough to support the plea of the respondent No.
1. It has been held by superior Courts that the solitary statement of the landlord is sufficient to establish bona fide personal need. The learned counsel for the appellant has not pointed out any evidence on record that may have led to a different conclusion.
9. I have examined the entire record and gone through the judgments and decrees of the learned lower Courts. Nothing has been pointed out in the decisions of the lower Courts which may be contrary to the law. Further the learned counsel has not pointed out any material issue which has not been determined or any substantial error or defect in the procedure adopted by the learned lower Courts that may possibly have led to a different result.
10. In view of the above, these appeals fail and same are accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. #EndJudgment