' This second appeal filed by the landlord is directed against the learned Additional District Judge's order dated 3-6-1976, whereby the appellant's first appeal against the learned Rent Controller's order dated 8-3-1976, rejecting his ejectment petition against the respondent, was dismissed.
2. The facts giving rise to this litigation, in brief, are that the appellant sought the respondent's eviction from the shop in dispute, on the grounds of default, bona fide personal need and commission of acts impairing the value and utility of the demised property. The respondent contested the petition, controverted the appellant's allegations and pleaded that he merely wanted to increase the rent.
3. The learned Rent Controller found all the pleas raised by the appellant against him. His first appeal was also dismissed. Hence this S. A. O.
4. As the appellant's learned counsel has challenged the findings of the learned Courts below, only on the question of bona fide personal need, this issue alone, shall be dealt with in this appeal. The appellant's case is that he does not own any other shop and is working as a tailor in a rented shop which is not sufficient for his requirement and thus the shop in dispute is bone fide needed for his use. He also asserted that his three major sons were roaming about for want of business premises.
5. In support of the ejectment petition the appellant himself appeared in the witness-box and examined two witnesses namely Arshad Ali P. W. 2 and Noor Muhammad P. W.
3. Both of them corroborated the appellant that he required the shop for his own use and the rented shop in his possession was insufficient for his needs.
6. In rebuttal the respondent, in addition, to the evidence of his two witnesses relied on his own testimony. He deposed that the appellant did not require the shop bona fide for personal use but intended to increase the rent ; the shop already occupied by him was suitable for his requirements His both the witnesses also stated that the appellant wanted to enhance the rent.
7. On the point of bona fide personal need the learned Rent Controller maintained that in the ejectment petition, the appellant neither pleaded unsuitability of the shop presently occupied by him nor the need of his sons, and thus could not be permitted to improve his case in the evidence.
The fact that the appellant was not compelled to vacate the demised shop, by the landlady under whom he occupied it, also merited reconsideration with the learned Rent Controller. He further came to the conclusion that even at the time of leasing out the shop in dispute to the respondent, the appellant worked in the rented shop and that he failed to prove any change in these circumstances, to justify the respondent's eviction. These findings were upheld by the learned Additional District Judge who maintained and there was no proof that the shop already in possession of the appellant fell short of his needs. It was primarily on these basis that the learned lower Courts, rejected the appellant's plea of bona fide personal need and declined to eject the respondent.
8. I have thoroughly examined the entire record. The evidence on the record fully proves that the appellant does not own any other business premises and is doing his business as a tailor in a demised shop. Even the respondent appearing as his own witness could not refute it. The learned Courts below, however, took the view that the appellant failed to establish that the rented shop occupied by him was not suitable for his business. It is to be noticed that in clause (b) of sub-para.
(ii) of (subsection (3) of section 13 of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 the expression : "any other such building." ' means the building owned by the landlord and does not cover the demised premises. This view finds support from Abdul Aziz and another v. Muhammad Ibrahim (1). Both the learned Courts below thus erred in law in refusing to pass an ejectment order against the respondent on the ground that the shop already in possession of the appellant was suitable for his requirement and that there was no move on the part of the landlady for his ejectment therefrom. The impugned order is therefore, liable to be set aside.
9. This appeal thus succeeds ; the impugned order is set aside ; the ejectment and the respondent ordered to be evicted from the shop in dispute. He shall hand over its vacant possession to the appellant within three months. In the circumstances of the case the parties are left to bear their own costs. {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) PLD 1977 SC 442 {{FOOT NOTE}}