' The judgment shall dispose of two constitutional petitions viz. Writ Petition No, 1354/88 Rehmat All v. Seth Muhammad Wajid and another and Writ Petition No, 1355/83 Feroze Din v. Seth Muhammad Shahid and another as common questions of law and facts are involved in these two matters. Seth Muhammad Wajid and Seth Muhammad Shahid are real brothers while Rehmat Ali and Feroze Din petitioners are their respective tenants.
2. In October, 1979 Seth Muhammad Wajid and Seth Muhammad Shahid filed two separate ejectment petitions against their respective tenants namely Rehmat Ali and Feroze Din seeking their eviction from two shops situate in Main Bazar, Mozang, Lahore each one belonging to each of the petitioners on the grounds of default in payment of rent and bona fide personal requirement.
3. Both the ejectment applications were filed by Seth Muhammad Sadiq, the father of Muhammad Wajid and Muhammad Shahid, acting as the next friend of his sons as at the time of filing of ejectment petitions both Muhammad Wajid and Muhammad Shahid were minors and not sui juris.
A Rehmat Ali as also Feroze Din resisted the ejectment petitions.
4. Necessary issues arising out of the parties pleadings were framed by the learned Controller. After recording the parties evidence, he ordered the eviction of Rehmat Ali and Feroze Din.
5. The appeals were taken by Rehmat Ali and Feroze Din before the learned Appellate Authority.
Both the appeals were dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority i,e, the Additional District Judge, Lahore, vide his judgment dated 5-1-1983. The learned Appellate Authority found that the landlord in both the cases had proved his bona fides regarding his requirement for personal use.
6 Through the under consideration constitutional petitions, Rehmat Ali and Feroze Din have assailed the aforesaid orders passed by the learned Appellate Authority.
7. It has been mainly urged that the findings of the Courts below regarding personal requirement were erroneous and not supported by records. It is thus pleaded that such findings are unwarranted and devoid of legal reasonings which call for interference by this Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction.
8. The original records of the learned Controller in both the cases were sent for. The same have been gone through and considered.
9. It has come on the record that both the respondents i,e, Muhammad Wajid and Muhammad Shahid have learnt the work of goldsmith from their father and they were capable of running this business independently and, therefore, the shops in question were required for their personal use.
10. It has been vehemently argued on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners themselves have not come into the witness-box to claim that they needed the shops for their personal use and their failure to do so is fatal. It is further urged that the petitioners being minors could not be deemed capable of running business independently and thus the question of their C requirement for personal use did not arise. Regarding failure of the petitioners to come into the witness-box reliance has been placed on Muhammad Ismail Khan v. Ghulam Muhammad (1). In this case a learned Single Judge of this Court observed that where the landlord claimed the eviction of the tenant on the ground that he needed the shop for the use of his son but the son was not produced, the landlord was not entitled to the vacation of the shop.
11. The circumstances of the under consideration cases are distinguishable. As already observed, the two ejectment petitions were filed by the petitioners through their father acting as their next friend as at the time of filing of the petitions both the petitioners themselves were minors. In Ghulam Qadir and another v. Rehmat Ullah (2), it has been held by this Court :- "As regards the fact of the failure of the respondent's son to appear as witness, I feel that, in the circumstances of the present case, it is of little consequence."
12. In the peculiar circumstances of the present case also when the petitioners themselves were minors at the relevant time, their failure to come into the witness-box is not of much consequence as their next friend and father appeared and testified about the bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises for personal use by the petitioners.
13. Regarding the next objection that on account of minority of the petitioners they could not possibly run the business independently, it may be observed that at the time of institution of ejectment petitions, Wajid Ali and Muhammad Shahid were aged 16 years and 14 years respectively. Boys of such ages can run the business. Moreover, by now they have become sui juris.
The appeals before the learned Appellate Authority were filed against the petitioners treating them as major and sui juris. This objection, therefore, is no more available to the petitioners.
14. The Controller as also the learned Appellate Authority have recorded unanimous findings on the question of (fact) that the shops in question were needed by the landlords for their bona fide personal use. Such findings cannot be assailed by invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court merely for the reason that on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties some other conclusion is possible.
15. In the light of what has been observed above, there is no merit in both the constitutional petitions and the same are, therefore, dismissed in limine.
16. The petitioners in both the constitutional petitions are allowed one month time for vacating the shops in question.
(1) 1982 CLC 1695 (2) PLD 1979 Lah. 382