' An ejectment petition filed by the petitioners against Ghulam Abbas Bhatti respondent, for his eviction from the shop in dispute, on the grounds of default and bona fide personal need, was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller as premature. He upheld the respondents' plea that the period of tenancy agreed to between him and the previous landlord, namely, Ghulam Ahmad, from whom the petitioners purchased the property, was ten years and thus under the first proviso to clause (ii) of subsection (3) of section 13, before the expiry of this period, they could not apply for his eviction. However, the learned Addl. District Judge by his order dated 26th April, 1980, accepted the petitioner's appeal and remanded the case to the Rent Controller to record his findings on the issue relating to the petitioners' bona fide personal need, which he has left undecided. The respondent challenged the remand order by means of W. P. No, 9504/80 which was allowed and the learned Addl. District Judge, directed to decide the petitioners' appeal afresh on all the issues.
Accordingly, the latter heard the appeal. During the post-remand hearing, the controversy was confined only to the issue as to whether the petition was premature and on the question of bona fide personal need. Both the points were found against the petitioners and their appeal was dismissed on 24th November, 1980.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The respondent's claim that the tenancy is for a specific period of ten years, is not based on any document but anchored on his oral testimony and that of his two witnesses who deposed that in the year, 1975, Ghulam Ahmad, brought an ejectment petition against the former but the parties, compromised, as a result thereof, the period of tenancy was fixed at ten years, the respondent increased the rent from Rs, 50 to Rs, 60 per month and the landlord withdrew the petition. All this, is stated to have happened, through an oral compromise affected outside the Court and the Rent Controller's file bears only an order allowing the withdrawal of the ejectment petition. The respondent's oral evidence was relied upon by the learned Courts below. They disbelieved the testimony of Ghulam Ahmad, who appeared on behalf of the appellant and categorically denied to have entered into any such compromise with the respondent.
3. As regards the petitioner's personal need, their case is that it is required for the use of Sabir. Ali petitioner, who previously lived in a village, where he had a small holding, which he disposed of and permanently settled in Sheikhupura. In discarding the petitioner's version, the learned Additional District Judge, referred to the deposition of Mian Sohan examined by them and maintained that during the pendency of the ejectment proceedings, they got vacated a shop from another tenant, which could have been occupied by Sabir Ali and that according to the unrebutted statement of the respondent, the said petitioner was funning a `Karyana shop'.
4. In commenting on the validity of the impugned order, the point mostly debated upon by the learned counsel for the parties was as to whether or not the oral tenancy for a period of ten years, which obviously runs counter to the provisions of section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, is countenanced by the proviso aforesaid. This controversy, however, need not detain me, in view of the commanding language of subsection (1) A of section 13 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, which expressly prohibit the ejectment of a tenant except in accordance with the provisions of this Statute, such tenancies are no longer governed by the Transfer of Property Act. Be as it may, this proviso directly fell for consideration in Muhammad Yousaf v. Hakim Muhammad Ahmad and another and a verbal tenancy for a period of five years was upheld. I have not been persuaded to differ with the view taken in this precedent.
5. I am not unaware of the hazard involved in accepting the oral tenancy under the proviso, and magnitude of the mischief, which may be brought at the hands of unscrupulous litigants, banking largely on the witnesses, conditioned by moral degeneration, which lamentably, in these days, are not difficult to be found. But the Courts have to give effect to the provisions of the enactments and it is for the Legislature to suitably amend the law. However, when such an oral tenancy is claimed, the subordinate Courts are expected to demand strict proof.
6. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioners that the oral evidence tendered by the respondent does not conform to that standard. It may be so, but here, both the Courts below relied upon that evidence, and this being well within their competence, unless such reliance results in an error apparent on the face of the record, there would be no basis to intervene through judicial review. In this view of the matter, I do not feel inclined to strike down the concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the Courts below, in this behalf.
' As the petitioners stand non-suited on issue No, 1, it is idle to embark upon the scrutiny of findings on the other issue. 6-A. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. PLD 1978 Lah. 815