' Kh. Fauj Ehsan, Kb. Qasim Ehsan and Kb. Mohsin Ehsan respondents. Nos. I to 3 filed a petition for eviction against Sh. Muhammad Rafiq petitioner from Shop No, F-2022, Bazar Ihata, near Rang Mahal, Lahore for the use and occupation of respondent No,
1. The petitioner contested the matter contending that the respondents were benamidars as the property had in fact been purchased by Khawaja Muhammad Zubair son of Kh. Wali Muhammad from its former owner. The following issues were framed.
(1) Whether the petitioner required the shop in dispute in good faith for use of petitioner No, 1.
(2) Whether the petitioners are benamidars and its effect.
(3) Relief.
' The parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions. The learned Rent Controller decided issue No, 1 in the negative and issue No, .2 in the affirmative and held that it was proved that the shop in question had been purchased by Kh. Muhammad Zubair in the names of the respondents so as to eject the petitioner and in consequence dismissed the ejectment petition. The respondents preferred an appeal against the said order. The learned District Judge, Lahore vide his order, dated 1st June, 1983 accepted the appeal and ordered the ejectment of the petitioner. The learned District Judge observed that the petitioner had filed a civil suit to claim that the respondents were only benamidars for their Phopha Kh. Muhammad Zubair which was dismissed.
He further observed that since the petitioner had been paying rent to the respondents the relationship of landlord and tenant stood proved between the parties. As regards the bona fide personal need of the respondents the learned District Judge observed that at least two of them were grown up and claimed to possess sufficient experience of dealing in woollen shawls. Their father had a woollen shawls factory and thus there was nothing unusual for them to associate themselves with their father's avocation. Their claim of being the income-tax assessees for the last 4/5 years remained uncontradicted. The learned Appellate Authority further observed that the petitioner's testimony was required to disprove the claim of the respondents but he failed to enter the witness-box.
4. The order of the learned District Judge has been assailed through this Constitutional Petition on the ground that the learned District Judge has failed to advert to the various points on which the learned Rent Controller had based his decision in favour of the petitioner, that the learned District Judge did not examine the contentions raised by the petitioner on the plea that the Court of the learned Rent Controller was not competent to go into the question of title, that the evidence showing that Kh. Muhammad Zubair had entered into an agreement with the prospective tenant Muhammad Sharif was not accepted on wholly irrelevant consideration, that the learned Appellate Authority was absolutely wrong in observing that it was for the petitioner to produce Kh.
Muhammad Zubair or Mst. Zakia Begum to prove entries Exhs. R/1 and R/2 as his witnesses. It is further contended that the learned District Judge has acted without lawful authority in ignoring the evidence of the petitioner and has misread the evidence and misdirected himself in ordering the ejectment of the petitioner.
' Learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. He states that a tenant cannot be permitted to challenge the title of his landlord particularly when he has not denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. He adds that the question of the requirement of the shop in dispute by the respondents in good faith was properly looked into by the learned Appellate Court and the conclusion arrived at by the learned District Judge is justified on the basis of the evidence led by the respondents and no exception can be taken to it.
5. I have considered the matter. The approach to the evidence by the Appellate Court is based on a prom assessm ent of the evidence and it cannot be said that no objective assessment of the evidence produced on behalf of the petitioner was made or that the Court had in any manner misread the evidence on record or that its conclusions were wrong. The evidence led by the respondents in no way lacks in any essential respect for establishing the bona fide requirement in good faith for the use of respondent No,
1. Section 13, subsection (4) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance provides a sufficient safeguard to the tenant/petitioner in case the landlord (respondent) fails to occupy the shop for business in which case the petitioner can obtain possession as provided therein. If the Appellate Authority is satisfied about the bona fide requirement of respondent No, 1 there can hardly be any room for denying the said relief to him.
The petitioner's failure to personally appear in the witness-box to disprove the claim of the respondent is a weighty factor and cannot be ignored. Since he claimed to be in the personal knowledge of certain facts militating against the bona fide requirement of the respondent he should have himself appeared in the witness-box to depose about them but for the reasons best known to him he did not do so.
6. In view of the above circumstances, I do not find any force in this petition and dismiss the same accordingly.
7. The petitioner shall put the respondent in vacant possession of the shop in question within two months. 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.