' This appeal calls in question the legality of order dated 8-6-1976 passed by Additional District Judge, Faisalabad, whereby he accepted the appeal of the respondent and passed order of appellants' ejectment from the disputed house.
2. The relevant facts of the case are that respondent filed an ejectment petition against the appellants from the house in dispute on the grounds of default in payment of monthly rent, damage done to property and personal need for the use and occupation of the premises. The learned Rent Controller, on 3-1-1976, dismissed respondent's application. He filed an appeal which was accepted on 8-6-1976 by the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad. In appeal the finding of the learned Rent Controller that the respondent had no bona fide personal need of the premises was reversed. The learned Rent Controller had rejected the ground of personal need of the respondent for the reason that he had earlier sought ejectment of the appellant on the ground of self-requirement of the disputed premises but withdrew the ejectment petition on 15-1-1975 through a compromise. If According to the learned Rent Controller the second application filed after only a short span of time could not prove bona fide personal need of the respondent for the disputed property.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the order of the learned Additional District Judge reversing the finding of the learned Rent Controller in respect of the need of the respondent for the use and occupation of the disputed premises was erroneous and illegal.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, opposed this appeal and contended that the finding of fact arrived at by the learned Additional District Judge to the effect that the respondent had bona fide need for the house in dispute was not assailable in second appeal. It was further submitted that the evidence on record established that the respondent required the disputed house for his children who were studying in the College and schools.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the relevant record. The evidence on the record proved that the respondent required the disputed house to maintain his children therein, for imparting education to them. The fact that the respondent's children were studying in college and schools was not disputed by the appellants. It was only suggested that the children could continue to attend College and schools by coming from the village where they were residing at that time. The learned Additional District Judge rightly appraised the evidence on record and no misreading of evidence was pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, which could vitiate the findings of the learned Additional District Judge on this point. The mere withdrawal of the application earlier by the respondent would not debar him to file fresh application seeking ejectment of the appellants for his personal need in the circumstances of the instant case. I find no illegality in the impugned order of the learned Additional, District Judge and dismiss this appeal with no order as to costs. The appellants shall vacate the house in dispute and deliver its vacant possession to the respondent within a period of two months from the date of this order.