1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-This petition for special leave to appeal calls in question decision by a learned Single Judge in the Lahore High Court in an appeal filed by the petitioner (tenant) whereby the findings with regard to the bona fide requirement of the respondent (landlady) recorded by the lower appellate authority (contrary to the findings earlier rendered by the Rent Controller) were affirmed.
2. Learned counsel has, relying on Madan Gopal and 4 others v. Marare Bepari and 3 others (PLD 1969SC617), contended that the first learned appellate authority having reversed the order of the learned Rent Controller, the learned Single Judge should not have accepted the findings recorded in first appeal that the landlady having died after the decision in first appeal, the ground for personal requirement thereby came to an end, and that during the pendency of the eviction application she made attempts to get the house requisitioned and, because she had also asked for the increase of rent, therefore the requirement was not bona fide. Learned counsel has, in effect criticized the appreciation of evidence by the two learned appellate forums.
3. In the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge took due notice of the orders passed by the Controller and the first appellate authority. All the essential aspects of the case were noticed and the reasoning of the appellate Court. Thus, it is not a case of absence of re-examination and exclusive reliance on the findings of fact reached at first appellate stage. We do not agree with the learned counsel that the rule laid down in the case of Madan Gopal was in fact departed from. We have also compared the reasoning in the order of Controller with that of first appellate authority.
4. The latter examined in detail the order of the former and gave convincing reasons for upsetting the finding of fact. Detailed reference was also made to the evidence on record. We are unable to agree with learned counsel that the impugned findings do not find support from evidence. The first contention accordingly has no force.
5. The landlady has sought eviction of the petitioner on grounds of personal requirement of her own as also of her children. Her death during the litigation would not make any difference in so far as the children's requirement,, is concerned. The question of requisitioning of the property allegedly at the instance of the landlady was not urged before the learned Single Judge. Otherwise too, it is of no help to the petitioner. The alleged demand for increase in rent has not been established.
6. The subsidiary argument of the learned counsel that the landlady failed to produce documentary evidence regarding her own health and the schooling of her children at Lahore, therefore, she should not have been believed in this behalf, has not impressed us. The statements made from the respondent side on oath remained un-rebutted by any better evidence. The same having been accepted by two appellate Courts there is no justification for upsetting the findings of fact.
7. This petition has no force and the same is hereby dismissed.