This order will dispose of S.A.O. Nos. 479 and 480 of 1977 which have been filed by the appellant against two judgments of the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, dated the 16th April, 1977 by which two applications for eviction filed by the appellant against his two tenants being the respondents in the aforesaid appeals were dismissed. The lear--ned Additional District Judge vide his aforesaid orders in the two appeals had set aside the order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller, Lahore, on the 18th January, 1977 against the respondents. Therefore it is a landlord's appeal against his tenants for setting aside the orders of the appellate authority with a prayer that his application against the respon--dents hereinafter called the tenants be accepted.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that on the 22nd January, 1978 the appellant filed two revision petitions against his two tenants being the respondents in the two appeals referred to above for their eviction from two shops situate in Qureshi Mohallah, Mozang Road, Lahore, bearing property No. S.V111. 21-5-3. The shops are in occupation of the tenants on a monthly rent of Rs. 30 each. The applications for eviction procee--ded on the ground of damage and for personal need for his two sons by the name of Yasin and Zaheer. These applications were contested by the tenants and the ground of damage to the property was denied and also the personal need of the two shops by the sons. On the pleadings of the parties two issues were framed one related to the damage and the other relating to the personal need. Both the petitions were consolidated and during the trial the ground for damage was not pressed. The learned Rent Controller vide his order dated the 18th January, 1977 accepted the appli--cations as stated above holding that the petitioner required the shops bona fide for use and occupation by his sons. The learned Rent Controller, however, did not property appreciate the evidence on record. The tenants having filed two separate appeals the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore examined the depositions of the witnesses in detail and found that the shops in dispute were not required by the appellant in good faith and held that a tenant could not be evicted on a mere whim of the landlord and that the bona fides were required to be proved before the eviction could be ordered.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that there was sufficient evidence on record to prove the bona fides of the appellant and his personal need had been established. It was further contended that a bare statement of the appellant that the shops were required in good faith for his sons was sufficient. For this proposition reliance has been placed on Ghulam Mohyuddin v. Suba Khan (1) and Abdul Aziz and another v. Muhammad Ibrahim) (2).
4. The learned counsel for the respondent has, however, argued that the two sons of the appellant for whose benefit the shops were required to be vacated have not been produced as witnesses. It is further argued that it has been admitted that the appellant had previously got vacated one shop from a tenant on the ground of personal use for his son but the said shop was later on amalgamated in his house. It is further argued that the bona fides of the appellant as such were discounted. Reliance has been placed on Soofi Muhammad Yasin and Brothers and another v. Dr: Major Abdul Ahad Khan (3) for the proposition that the children for whose benefit the shops were required to be got vacated should have been produced. The learned counsel has also stated that the judgment of this Court reported as Ghulam Qadir and another v. Rehmat Ullah (4) was distingui--shable as in that case it was held with reference to the facts of that case that the production of the son for whose benefit the shops were needed was not necessary.
5. 1 have gone through the entire evidence myself as it was a case of renewal of the original order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller. 1t is established from the record that the appellant got one shop vacated on the ground of personal need and converted it for residential purpose.
Muhammad Shafi (A.W. 1) has not said a single word as to whether the appellant's sons required the shop for their personal use or that they are not in occupation of any shop suitable for their needs. Similarly Muhammad Ayub (A. W. 9) has stated that the appellant has four sons and 3 are already working and one is without any job. One of the sons is stated to be doing furniture business in a rented shop. This witness has also not stated that the appellant required the shop for the personal use of his sons. Muhammad Sarwar (A. W. 3) has stated that the shop in question is needed for the personal use of the appellant. He has further pointed out that one of the appellants has get a shop rented from Haji Barkat Ali through him. There is another son by the name of Yaseen who is doing business and the shop is only needed for Zaheer. It would be interesting to point out that appellant had stated that the landlord of the shops in which his son Yasin was carrying on the furniture business wanted to get it vacated. As already stated A.W. 3 has said that he had got the shop from Haji Barkat Ali for his son Yaseen who was doing the business there. He did not state that the landlord wanted to get the shop vacated or that his son ever intends to carry on the business in this shop.
6. On the other band the respondent bad produced two witnesses Siraj Din (R.W. 1) and Abdul Aziz (R.W. 2) who have stated that the appellant does not need the shops in dispute for the use by his sons
(1) PLD 1977 Lah. 1094(2) PLD 1977 SC 442 '
(3) PLD 1976 Kar. 123(4) PLD 1979 Lah. 382 and that all his sons are well settled and carrying on independent business.
7. After appreciating the entire evidence on record it would be absolutely clear that the bona fides of the appellant have not at all been established. The appellant got one shop vacated for personal need and got it included in his house. The two sons for whose benefit the shops were needed were not produced. The ground that landlord of the shops in which one of the sons was carrying on the business wanted to get vacated was not established. On the contrary the respondent has Pro-- duced Independent witnesses and there is nothing to disbelieve their statements. This appeal has no force and therefore is dismissed with no order as to costs.