ORDER CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.---This Second Appeal against the Order has been directed against the judgment dated 8-3-2010 passed by learned District Judge, Sargodha; who dismissed the appeal and maintained the order of learned Rent Controller, Sargodha.
2. Learned counsel. For the appellant contends that respondent filed an eviction petition under section 13 of the 'Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, against the appellant for the ejectment of appellant from suit shop fully described in Para No.1 of the appeal.
3. That the appellant/respondent contested the eviction petition by filing written reply.
4. That the Rent Controller, Sargodha, after framing of issues and recording of oral as well as documentary evidence of the parties, accepted the eviction petition on the ground of bona fide personal need and that the appellant is a willful defaulter vide order dated 23-11-2006.
5. That the appellant filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Sargodha, Who accepted the appeal and vide judgment dated 14-9-2007 remanded the case back to the learned Rent Controller for deciding it afresh after affording opportunity to the parties.
6. That in pursuance of direction of learned District Judge, Sargodha, vide order dated 14-9-2007 the learned Rent Controller framed fresh issues and after recording of evidence of the parties, again accepted the eviction petition on 21-1-2010 and directed the appellant to vacate the suit shop and hand over its vacant and peaceful possession to the landlord.
7. That feeling dissatisfied with the order of ejectment dated 21-1-2010, the appellant filed an appeal before the first appellate court which met the same fate and vide judgment dated 8-3- 2010 District Judge, Sargodha, dismissed the appeal, hence this second appeal.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant inter alia contends that both the learned courts below have not applied their judicial mind. The impugned orders are illegal and against the law, facts and pleadings. Both the learned courts below have acted illegally and with material irregularity which is not warranted under the law. The respondent has not mentioned in the pleading the exact date of default and no one has corroborated the version of respondent and both the learned courts below have accepted the eviction petition on the sole statement of respondent. The respondent has failed to produce convincing evidence nor he could prove that he requires the suit shop bona fide for his personal use. The respondent has also not produced his sons to support his version.
Therefore, S.A.O. Be allowed, impugned judgments/orders passed by learned courts below are set aside and eviction petition be dismissed with costs throughout.
9. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed this S.A.O. And has contended" that there is concurrent findings of two courts below against the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any illegality in the impugned judgments/ orders, therefore, appeal in hand be dismissed.
10. Arguments heard. Record perused.
11. The contents of eviction petition reveals that the respondent is father of two sons who are young and educated but jobless. The respondent wants the suit shop so that under the self employment, he may get his sons adjusted in the business. The . Appellant has failed to bring on record that respondent is owner of commercial property. Admittedly the rented shop was obtained by the appellant at a monthly rent of Rs.675 with an increased of 10% per annum. The suit shop was rented out to the appellant in 1988 but as per calculation, the appellant has not been paying the monthly rent to the respondent at the enhanced rate. Both the learned courts below have rightly held that respondent is a wilful defaulter and decide the-issue of default in favour of respondent.
11. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the appellant is concerned that the respondent only appeared as his witness and no one else including his two sons have corroborated his version is mis-conceived because the un-shaken sole statement of landlord is sufficient to prove his contentions. Record reveals that respondent appeared as A.W.1 and made his statement on oath which remain un-shattered during the course of cross-examination. Both the learned courts below have rightly decided Issues Nos.3 and 4 in favour of respondent.
Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any illegality. Misreading or non-reading of evidence in the impugned judgments/orders.
18. As a result of above discussion, this appeal is without any substance which is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.