CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.~- The SAO has been directed against the order dated 30.6.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chakwal, who dismissed the appeal and maintained the order of Rent Controller, Chakwal.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent Usman Nabi instituted eviction petition through Jehangir Baber his father the Usman Nabi is minor and his father has no adverse interest against him. It was averred that respondent purchased property in dispute vide registered sale-deed No. 526, dated 8.3.2007 from Mst. Nasim Akhtar etc. And appellant was tenant of the vendor; that respondent issued notice in the name of appellant for the change of ownership, thereafter with the mutual consent of the parties lease agreement dated 12.3.2007 was executed and rent @ Rs.
2,500/- per month was decided; that tenancy was to be expired on 25.7.2007; that appellant paid rent for the month of March at said rate but thereafter refused to pay the rent, respondent required shop on the ground of personal bona i.e need, wilful default and termination of lease agreement.
3. The eviction petition was contested by the landlord. The learned Rent Controller out of the divergent pleadings of the parties framed issues and after recording oral as well as documentary evidence of the parties, vide order dated 13.1.2010 accepted the eviction petition and directed the appellant/tenant to vacate the suit shop and hand over its possession to the respondent/landlord.
4. Feeling dis-satisfied the appellant filed an appeal which was also dismissed by the learned Additional ! District Judge, Chakwal on 30.6.2010, hence, this SAO.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that both the learned Courts below have not properly judged the evidence produced by the parties. The lease agreement is a forged and fabricated document which is under challenge before the competent Civil Court, Further contends that the appellant is not defaulter. He has paid the entire outstanding rent to the respondent. The respondent is owner of a big market and he has filed the instant eviction petition with mala i.e intention just to enhance the rent of suit shop. Further contends that the respondent does not require the suit shop bona i.e for his personal need. The appellant produced convincing evidence in support of his contentions which was totally ignored by both the learned Courts below, therefore, SAO be accepted, impugned orders passed by both the learned Courts below be set aside and the eviction petition filed by the respondent be dismissed with costs throughout.
6. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed this SAO and has contended that the respondent is a lawful owner of suit shop. After the purchase of above-said shop, the respondent served the appellant/tenant with a notice informing him that respondent has purchased the suit shop and in future the petitioner shall pay rent of the demised premises to the respondent. Further contends that a lease agreement was also executed between the parties which was signed by the appellant, respondent and the witnesses. He further avers that the appellant is a wilful defaulter. There are concurrent findings of two Courts below against the appellant who has failed to point out any illegality in the impugned orders. This SAO is devoid of any merit, it be dismissed.
7. Arguments heard. Record perused.
8. Perusal of record highlights that the respondent purchased the suit shop vide registered sale- deed No. 526, dated 8.3.2007 from one Mst. Nasim Akhtar, thereafter, the petitioner executed a lease agreement on 12.3.2007 and agreed to pay rent @ Rs. 2,500/- per month. This lease agreement was duly signed, by the appellant, respondent and the witnesses. The appellant has otherwise not denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The appellant further admits that before the purchase of suit shop by the present respondent, the appellant had been putting up in the suit shop as a tenant, therefore, through change of ownership, the appellant automatically becomes a statutory tenant by operation of law. However, the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that lease agreement is a forged and fabricated document is not tenable on the ground that before the learned Rent Controller, the respondent produced AW-2, Naseer-ul- Haq, who is a marginal witness of lease agreement. AW-2 has fully supported the version of the respondent/landlord that the lease agreement Ex. A1 was executed before him and he signed the same as a marginal witness. AW-3 is the subscriber of Ex. A1 who fully supported the factum of execution of Ex. A1. Similarly, today, during the arguments learned counsel for the respondent has produced a certified copy of judgment dated 2.12.2010 passed by Mr. Umar Hayat Jawwad, Civil Judge, Chakwal, who dismissed the suit of the appellant whereby the appellant had challenged the lease agreement. Though, this document is not exhibited but still it is a relevant document for the disposal of matter in hand in the interest of justice, It is further pertinent to mention here that the appellant has not denied his thumb-impression affixed on Ex. A1, therefore, version of appellant that Ex. A1 is a forged document is' misconceived.
The next argument of the learned counsel for appellant that the respondent is owner of a number of shops and the eviction petition for the vacation of suit shop are based on mala i.e is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the choice of shop is the prerogative of landlord. The respondent in the instant case has categorically stated that he required the suit shop for his bona i.e personal need but this fact was not cross-examined by the appellant which amount admission on his behalf.
9. In the present case through the execution of agreement was denied, however, the appellant had been claiming that he is tenant in the suit shop under an oral lease agreement. Perusal of record highlights that the appellant miserably failed to prove that he paid the rent within stipulated period of 60 days from the date when rent was due, therefore, both the learned Courts below have rightly held that appellant is a wilful defaulter who has neither tendered nor paid the rent of suit shop to the landlord. There are concurrent findings of two Courts below and learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any illegality of jurisdictional error in the impugned orders. This SAO is without any merit. The same is dismissed. The appellant is directed to vacate the suit shop and hand over its vacant and peaceful possession to the respondent within 60 days. He is also directed to pay the future rent.