This appeal is directed against the ejectment order passed by the Civil Judge and Rent Collector, Shahdadpur against the appellant in Rent Applica--tion No. 24 of 1979, in respect of a shop situated in Shahdadpur.
2. The shop bearing City Survey No. B-714 was rented out to the appellant at Rs. 120, per month in the year 1976. The respondent landlady wanted this shop for goldsmith business to be run through her husband, therefore, she demanded possession from the appellant. In para. 5 of her rent application the respondent states as under "That the applicant requires the shop in suit in good faith for her personal use as she wants to open a shop of Goldsmith and her husband will work in the shop as he is well-acquainted with the work."
3. As the appellant refused to vacate the shop, hence the ejectment application.
4. The plea of the appellant in his written statement was that he was occupying the shop for 5-6 years, that originally, the rent was Rs. 65, per month then it was enhanced to Rs. 85, and finally to Rs. 120, per month about 1i years before the filing of the ejectment application. The last enhancement in the rent was agreed to on the condition that the respondent shall provide a separate iron door and an electric meter to the shop, but this condition was not fulfilled. It is also alleged that the respondent has got another shop which has been rented out to one Ghasi Khan ; but in the written statement it has not been stated that Ghasi Khan has vacated the shop or that this shop is lying vacant. In para. 12 of the written statement the appellant has alleged that he had made an application to Martial Law Authorities against the respondent and that by way of revenge the respondent has filed the ejectment proceedings against him.
5. In support of her plea, the respondent has examined her husband Shabbir Hussain (Exh. 18) and Mahboob (Exh. 19). Her own statement was recorded on commission which is Exh. 11 on record.
6: During the arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the respondent has failed to establish good faith which is an essential ingredient to claim possession of premises for personal requirement under section 13 (2) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959.
7. In support of this plea, he has argued that the husband of the respondent had vacated this shop only two months before it was rented out to the appellant and 'that he had left the business of goldsmith since 1956 Therefore, it is urged, there is no occasion for the landlady or her husband Shabbir Hussain to restart the same business after 20 years,
8. There is no doubt as to the fact that the husband of the landlady, namely, A. W. Shabbir Hussain had been carrying on the business of gold smith during the fifties. He has admitted this fact in his cross-examination. He has also stated that after 1956 he could not continue this business for certain reasons, but now he has been able to restart this business. To the same effect is the evidence of Mst. Sharifan, landlady (Exh. 11).
9. The next plea taken by the counsel for the appellant is that the respondent has got another shop adjacent to the disputed shop which was on rent with Ghasi Khan and which is now lying vacant.
This plea was not taken by the appellant in his written statement, but for the first time in his evidence the appellant Ghulam Mustafa pleaded that the shop which was rented out by the respondent to Ghasi Khan is lying vacant. However, in cross-examination he was specifically questioned by the respondent's counsel that this shop is not vacant. It was suggested that Ghasi Khan is still in possession of the shop. It is, therefore, not correct that any other shop of the respondent is available to her for immediate occupation.
10. The next plea taken by the appellant's learned counsel during the arguments is that the rent of the shop has been raised twice by the respondent and that the main object behind the ejectment proceedings was to compel the appellant to enhance the rent further. This fact has been denied by the respondent whose case from the very beginning is that the shop was given on rent by an agreement at Rs. 120, per month. It was the duty of the appellant, under such circumstances, to have produced the receipts of rent which he had paid at the rate of Rs. 65 or Rs. 85 per month. He has admitted that he had such receipts with him but they are not available with him now. I have no hesitation in holding that this plea of the appellant is baseless.
11. It was next urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that the other motive behind the ejectment proceedings was that an application was filed by the appellant against the respondent to the Martial Law Authorities due to which the respondent was annoyed. A. W. Shabbir Hussain Khan in his re-examination (Exh. 18) has stated that this application to the Martial Law Authorities was filed after the commencement of the present ejectment proceedings. It is, therefore, incorrect to say that the ejectment application was filed by way of vengeance as alleged by the appellant.
12. From the statement of respondent Mst. Sharifan and her husband Shabbir Hussain who have been subjected to lengthy cross-examination, I am satisfied that the respondent requires this shop for her. Personal bona fide use for starting business of goldsmith through her husband. No exception can, therefore, be taken to the finding of the learned Rent Controller the respondent was entitled to get possession of this shop. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed with costs. The appellant, however, is given two months' time to vacate the shop. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.