This is second Appeal filed by the two appellants against the judgment of Additional District Judge, Sanghar, dated 18-1-1981 whereby the order of Rent Controller granting ejectment against the appellants was maintained.
2. Briefly the facts which lead to the instant appeal are that respon--dent Maqbool Ahmad is the owner landlord of the shop bearing No. 2, on C.S. No. 148/1 situated on Berani Road. Tando Adam.
Originally the shop belonged to the father of respondent. The father (Muneeruddin) transferred the property as gift and handed over the symbolic possession to the respondent. The City Survey record was also mutated in the name of respondent. Becoming the owner and landlord of the shop in possession of appellant No. 1, Abdus Majid, the respondent informed him orally and through a notice in writing by registered post A'D through his advocate intimating him the fact of his becoming the owner/landlord of the property, and also informed him that appellant No. 1 violated the agreement by subletting the shop in question to appellant No. 1. He called upon the appellant to vacate the premises as he needed the same in good faith for his own personal bona -fide use.
Notice was served on appellant No. 1 who made a reply to the notice denying the allegations of the respondent and refused to vacate the shop in question. Subsequently rent application was filed by Maqbool Ahmed the respondent before the Rent Controller, who allowed the rent application on the ground that respondent needed shop in good faith for his own its,
3. The Rent Controller framed the following issues :-
(1) Whether the opponent is a defaulter? If so, to what extent the applicant is entitled to benefit ?
(2) Whether the opponent has sublet the premises (shop) to Opponent No. 2 ?
(3) Whether the applicant informed the opponent about his ownership ?
(4) Whether the applicant requires the shop for his own use in good faith ?
4. The Rent Controller decided issue No.4 in favour of respondent/ landlord and ordered ejectment of the appellants from the shop in dispute An appeal was filed by the appellants and the Additional District Judge discussed the case of both the pasties and came to the conclusion that the shop in fact is needed by the respondent in good faith for business purposes to run a Kiryana shop there.
Therefore, appeal before him was dismissed.
5. The case was argued at length by the learned counsel of the appellants Mr. Shaikh A. Sattar and by Mr. Noor Muhammad Khan Talpur the learned counsel for respondent. Mr. Sattar Shaikh raised only one point that the respondent did not require the shop for his own personal use and that the bona fides of the respondent are to be suspected. He made a reference to the evidence of the respondent where he admitted that he was a medical student in L. M. C., Jamshoro. According to the learned counsel of the appellants, the respondent being a medical student would not start a Kiryana shop and, therefore, his bona fides are question. Able. This pertinent point was replied by the learned Additional District Judge. I would rather like to quote from his judgment the relevant passage "1t has come in evidence that he had been separated by his father and, therefore. In all probability he must be needing the shop for starting his own business to earn his livelihood. It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants that the respondent was a medical student of L. M. C.
Jamshoro. This position is also admitted by the respondent who has himself given his occupation as student, but this does not mean that a student does not need any shop to carry on his business, or that a student has no right to start his business. He can even employ someone else to look after his business and himself pursuing his studies."
6. It appears that the bona fides and good faith of the respondent are correctly dealt by the Additional District Judge and it is not under standable as to how the bona fides could be questioned only because the respondent happens to be a medical student. . Apart from this no other point has been agitated by the learned advocate for the appellants.
7. However, while the matter was being argued before the learned Additional District Judge, another plea was also raised by the appellants who stated that the respondent wanted to enhance the rent of the premises to which they were not agreeable and, therefore, maliciously the rent application was filed. It is indeed true that originally the shop carried a rent at the rate of Rs. 45 per month and subsequently the rent was raised to Rs. 60 and Rs.
70. The respondent does not admit that he has any dispute with the appellants on the enhancement of rent. Thus the enhancement of rent on two occasions in the past has nothing to do with the personal requirement of the respondent. The statement made by the respondent in lower Court with regard to his personal requirement of the premises inspires confidence and', the two courts below believing the same, have given concurrent findings. It is now a settled law that the question of bona fides stands concluded by concurrent findings of the two Courts below It was held in the cafe reported in 1981 SCMR 45 that such a concurrent finding is not open to challenge in absence of any omission or misreading of evidence or violation of any principles of law applicable to the case of, this type.
Reference is also made to PLD 1981 Kar. 26 wherein it was held as follows :- I am further of the view that the question of bona fide requirement is purely a question of fact and the two Courts below have concurrently found that the premises was required bona fide by the landlady for her son, it was riot open to review by this Court in IInd Appeal, unless the findings of the two Courts below was based on misreading of evidence or the Courts below committed an error in the procedure prescribed by law which effected the ultimate decision of the case on merit."
8. 1 do not find that the Courts below have misread the evidence or that they have arrived at err4eous conclusions. The concurrent finding of the two courts below in respect of issue that the respondent needs the shop in good faith and boned fide for his own personal use stands proved and established. According to find no force in the appeal and dismiss the appeal with no order as to costs.