The second appeal of appellant Mukhtar Ahmed is directed against the order of VII Additional District Judge, Karachi, dated 3-5-1979, whereby the learned Judge had upheld the ejectment order passed by 14th Civil Judge and Rent Controller Karachi by his order dated 14-3-1978 against the appellant.
2. Respondent Jan-e-Alam had rented out two rooms of building bearing No. 3-D/26/8, situated at Nazimabad to the appellant on monthly rent at Rs.
150. Respondent along with his 12 members of his family resided on the first floor of this building. The respondent filed ejectment application being rent case No. 3194/75 against the. Appellant on the ground that he required the premises for his personal use. The learned Rent Controller, after recording evidence of the Parties came to the conclu--sion that the premises in possession of the appellant, were required by the respondent for his personal use in good faith. He, therefore granted ejectment application. The plea of the appellant was that the respondent was not in bona fide need of this premises and that his main object in filing ejectment application was to compel him to enhance the rent. This plea of the appellant was repelled by the learned Rent Controller.
3. Against the above order of the Rent Controller which is dated 14-3-1978, the appellant filed appeal before V1I Additional District Judge, Karachi, being rent appeal No. 243/78. The learned Additional District Judge upheld the finding of the Rent Controller that the respondent was in bona fide need of the premises in question and as such he dismissed the appeal by his order dated 3-5- 1979. Hence this second appeal under section 15 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959.
4. In support of his plea of bona fide requirement the respondent Jan-e-Alam had examined himself in the Trial Court and stated that his family consists of 13 members and that the existing accommodation in the first floor of the building in question, is not sufficient for his requirement. He, therefore, wants possession of the two rooms which had been let out to the appellant. In support of this statement the respondent (also pro--duced Ration Card showing members of his family. In rebuttal there is evidence of Mukhtar and his witness Muhammad Rafiq to the effect that respondent does not require the additional accommodation for his family. Muhammad Ratiq further deposed that he was originally tenant in the same premises which the appellant is now occupying that he (Muhammad Rafiq) had vacated the premises on the request of respondent because he wanted the same for his personal use and that on his request he had vacated the same but the respondent, instead of occupying these premises, rented out the same to one Abdul Rauf on higher rent and that he got the same vacated from Abdul Rauf also and re-let the same to the present tenant, that is, the appellant on still higher rent.
5. Both the Courts below have disbelieved the evidence of the appel--lant. In cross-examination it was specifically suggested to Muhammad Rafiq that he was never tenant of the respondent in the premises in question nor Abdul Rauf was ever inducted as tenant in these premises. No documentary evidence has been produced to show that Muhammad Rafiq or Abdul Rauf were tenant in these premises before the appellant occupied the same.
6. I have no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the two Courts below. The scope of interference by this Court in the concurrent findings of fact of the two Courts below, is very limited. The learned counsel for the appellant has failed to show that the finding of fact is based on misreading of the evidence or it is perverse. Agreeing with the lower Courts I do not see any reason to disturb the find--ing of fact arrived at by them. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs. The appellant is, however, given two months time to vacate the premises.