SHAFI-UR-REHMAN, J.-The petitioners are the tenants who seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, whereby the second appeal filed by them against an ejectment order under the Rent Restriction Ordinance, was dismissed on 24-2-1979 allowing two months to hand over vacant possession of the property to the respondent-- landlord.
2. The respondent claimed to have succeeded Mst. Sughran, the earlier landlady of the property, on the basis of an award made the rule of the Court. He sought the eviction of the petitioners on the ground that there had been a default in the payment of rent from 1-8-1974, that the property bad been damaged, that material alterations had been made, that the property was being used for purposes other than the one for which it was obtained and that the respondent required the property in good faith for use of his male children. The petitioners case before the Rent Controller was that the respondent was not the landlord as he had not served a notice under sec--tion 13-A of the Rent Restriction Ordinance (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) the award under which he derived title and interest was not regist--ered and in the alternative that an agreement had come into existence between' the parties whereby enhanced rent was payable by the petitioners at Rs. 1,500 p. m. And they were to be protected in their tenancy for two years. It was also stated that the alterations in the use of the property and also structural changes made were with the constent of Mst. Sughran and not objected rather permitted them, the respondent 'as successor- in-interest, could not make them the ground for eviction. The bona fide need of the respondent was denied.
3. The Controller held that a notice under section 13-A of the Ordi--nance as required under the law, had been served and that pro--perty had been let out for residence but was being also used as an office. As regards the structural alterations, it was held that an antenna pole about 50 to 60 feet high had been installed by digging the. Foundation, that an additional bathroom was made in the later-floor and wash-basin was removed and a part of the bath-room was con--verted into a telephone exchange. A room in the inter-floor was given anew door opening and a window had been installed. The need of the family of the landlord was held to be genuine. Hence their eviction was ordered. On appeal these findings were affirmed and as regards the non---registration of the award, it was held that the Controller being a Tribunal of limited jurisdiction could not go into it. The same findings were affirmed by the High Court.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that there was evidence on the record that a fresh agreement had come into existence between the respondent and the petitioners whereby enhanced rent at Rs. 1,500 p. m. Was payable and necessary instructions in accordance with the agreement had been given to the bank and the respondent-landlord had refused to complete that agreement. In terms of that agreement the respondent could not seek eviction for two years and the petitioners had committed no default. Additionally, it is said, that as on the date of such agreement the property was put to a particular use, the respondent should be taken to have acquiesced in such use and no structural changes in the building afterwards or, in the use of it took place to afford a grievance to the petitioners. As at alter--native it was contended that the respondent was not the landlord having not served the necessary notice under section 13-A of the Ordinance and could not base his claim for ejectment on grounds which were available to the predecessor landlord who had in fact not invoked it for getting the peti--tioners evicted.
5. The controversy between the parties involved essentially questions off fact. Concurrent findings of fact had been recorded by all the Court seized of the matter. The law points sought to be raised do not in fact arise in the case. For example all the Courts having rejected that an fresh agreement has come into existence the petitioners or not justified in invoking the clauses of such an agreement for defeating the ejectment applica--tion filed by the respondent. The fact that such a duly executed agree--ment as could be enforceable by the petitioners had come into existence is negatived by their own plea taken up in reply to the ejectment application in para. 2 The Courts have taken the unilateral acts of the petitioners to be insuffcient to bind the respondents landlord in the matter of his rights and obligations. There was a notice on the record which showed that the requirement of section 13-A of the Ordinance was duly complied with and that is a finding of all the Courts also. They therefore recognized the respon--dent as the landlord. The contention that the property was not acquired for residential purposes is negatived by the agreement of tenancy between the petitioners and the previous owners wherein it was specially stipu--lated that the property shall be used for residence purposes.
We find that the findings of fact have been recorded on material on record and are not liable to be ineterfered with. The petition has no merit and is dismissed. A period of two months is allowed from today to the petitioners to hand over vacant possession of the property to the respondent and in the meanwhile they shall observe all the terms of the tenancy.