' This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Mianwali, dated the 13th May, 1977, dismissing the appeliant's appeal against the order of the learned Rent Controller, Mianwali, dated the 22nd February, 1977, whereby the respondent's application under section 13 of the Punjab Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, for ejectment of the appellant from shop No, F-37, situate in Galt Kalorian, Mianwali, was accepted, the appellant was directed to be evicted from the shop and fair rent of the shop was fixed at the rate of Rs, 200 per mensem.
2. Haq Nawaz Khan. The respondent, sought eject ment of Amir Abdullah Khan, the appellant, on the ground that he required the shop in good faith for his own use as well as for the use of his son for doing business. The appellant disputed the respondent's bona fides and contested the application.
3. It may be mentioned that earlier proceedings of ejectment of the appellant from the shop, in place of which the shop in dispute was constructed, initiated by its previous owner, Dr. Aziz Ullah Khan, ended on the 14th December, 1971, in the settlement whereby the appellant made over possession of that shop to Dr. Aziz Ullah Khan who was to reconstruct shop within six months and thereafter to lease it out to the appellant who was to pay rent at the prevalent market rate and any dispute touching the quantum of rent was to be decided by the Rent Controller. The shop after reconstruction was given by Dr. Aziz Ullah Khan to Ghulam Ahmad (A.W. 1) at a monthly rent of Rs, 200 but the appellant succeeded to recover its possession through the assistance of Rent Controller thereafter. However, he did not pay the prevalent market rent of Rs, 200.00 per mensem.
He averred that rent of Rs, 20 per mensem was quite adequate. The respondent claimed that he was entitled to receive rent from the appellant at the rate of Rs, 200 per mensem since the day he re-entered the shop on the 27th October, 1972.
4. The following issues came up for determination before the learned Rent Court,-
(1) Whether the petitioner requires the property in dispute in goo d faith for his personal bona fide use ?
(2) What is the fair rent of the property in dispute after reconstruction ?
(3) Relief.
5. The learned Rent Controller found that the respondent needed the shop for his personal as well as for his son's use in good faith. He assessed the rent of the shop at Rs, 200 per mensem. He ordered the appellant to be ejected from the shop. The appellant's appeal before the learned Additional District Judge having failed, he has approached this Court in second appeal.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant adverted to the events touching passing of ownership of the shop among the members of the respondent's family, earlier vacation of the possession of the shop by the appellant and his re-entry therein through the assistance of the Rent Controller, to show the questionable character of the bona fides of the appellant to recover possession of the shop. Admittedly the shop was originally owned by Dr. Aziz Ullah Khan, wife's sister's husband of the respondent, and the appellant occupied it as a tenant. Dr. Aziz Ullah Khan moved an application for ejectment of the appellant from the shop on the ground of its reconstruction. The proceedings ended in a compromise on the 14th December, 1971. The appellant handed over possession of the shop to Dr. Aziz Ullah Khan for reconstructing it on the basis of above referred to compromise which provided that it would be leased out again to him after reconstruction on the prevailing market rent. However, Dr. Aziz Ullah Khan rented out the newly built shop to Ghulam Ahmad (A.W. I) on the 1st May, 1972. A fortnight later the appellant made an application to the learned Rent Controller for restitution of possession of the shop to him. By his order dated the 22nd October, 1972, the learned Rent Controller directed that the appellant should be put in possession of the shop. The appellant entered into possession of the shop on the 27th October, 1972. In the meantime, on the 25th May, 1972, Dr. Aziz Ullah Khan sold the shop to his wife's sister, Mst. Ghulam Fatima, who in turn sold the same to the respondent on the 15th September, 1975, and ten days later the respondent filed against the appellant application for ejectment which has given rise to the present appeal.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the conduct of Dr. Aziz Ullah Khan in not letting in the appellant into his reconstructed shop as tenant and moving of ejectment petition by the respondent hardly ten days after purchasing it from Mst. Ghulam Fatima indicated that the respondent and his family members were out to dispossess the appellant from the shop. The contention of the learned counsel can be accepted only with a grain of salt. The shop remained with Ms;. Ghulam Fatima for more than three years and she did not take any action for dislodging the appellant. Had there existed any mala fide intention on the part of the respondent or his family members, ejectment proceedings would have been initiated against the appellant much earlier. It seems that the respondent purchased the shop with the object of starting his business and also of rehabilitating his son who had just passed his Bachelor of Arts examination, into business. The respondent is not shown to bear any previous enmity against the appellant. The respondent was a retired Tehsildar and his son had just passed his Degree examination. They owned 200 kanals of land which, in view of rather not good soil, was hardly sufficient to provide them with adequate income. Therefore, there was nothing wrong with the respondent's and his son's starting business.
The learned Rent Controller and the learned Additional District Judge have both endorsed the respondent's good faith in the matter of requiring the shop for his own as well as for his son's use. It is not possible to depart from the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the learned Rent Controller and the learned Additional District Judge. The appellant runs a drug store in his own shop which adjoins the shop in dispute which he is using as store for keeping surplus stock of medicine therein.
The appellant has other shop as well in the locality where the shop in dispute is situate and he has rented them out. In these circumstances the finding of the learned Rent Controller and of the learned Additional District Judge that the respondent required the shop in good faith for his own use and for the use of his son is affirmed.
8. Attacking the validity of the order of the learned Rent Controller fixing the fair rent of the shop at the rate of Rs, 200 per mensem, which order was upheld in appeal by the learned Additional District Judge, the learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that the appellant had not made any prayer for fixation of fair rent and that no order in that behalf should have been passed. Referring to the provisions of subsection (5-B) of section 13 of the Punjab Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, the learned counsel submitted that the process of determining fair rent could have been initiated only at the instance of the appellant, who was the tenant, and not on the application of the respondent, who was the landlord. However, it was on the basis of the compromise dated the 14th December, 1971, to which the appellant was a party, that the learned Rent Controller assessed the rent of the shop. The appellant had himself agreed to get the rent settled by the Rent Controller and now is estopped from taking exception to fixation of the rent by the learned Rent Controller. It has not been shown that the rent of Rs, 200 per mensem is in any way excessive.
9. In view of what has been stated above the appeal is without any force and is dismissed with costs.