' The facts giving rise to this Constitutional Petition are that Mst. Raheela Kausar and her sister Mst.
Bushra Kausar petitioners filed a petition for the ejectment of Muhammad Yousaf respondent from their house on the grounds of default and personal need.
' They contended that they had purchased the house through a registered sale-deed dated 11-7- 1982 and served a notice under section 13-A on the respondent because he was occupying that house as a tenant under the previous owner. Despite receipt of the notice the respondent failed to pay rent to them. The default was alleged since July, 1982 upto the date of filing the petition i.e. 21- 10-1982. They further stated that they had brought the house in dispute for their personal use and occupation. Their case was that one of the petitioners was married and was living with her husband in house of the brother of her husband while the marriage of other was held in abeyance for non-availability of suitable accommodation.
' The application was contested by Muhammad Yousaf respondent. However, he admitted the service of notice dated 29-7-1982 on him. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed:--
(1) Whether the respondent is a wilful defaulter since July, 1982? 0.P. A .
(2) Whether the petitioners need the premises in good faith for personal need? O.P.A. ,
(3) Whether the petition is mala fide? O.P.R.
(4) Whether the petitioners are liable to pay Rs.8,500 spent on repairs of the premises and is liable to be adjusted against the monthly rent? O.P.R.
(5) Relief.
' After recording evidence the learned Rent Controller vide his judgment dated 16-7-1985 decided the issue of default in favour of the petitioners. The oral statement of respondent that after the service of the notice he had tendered rent to the petitioners but they refused to receive the same was not considered sufficient to absolve him of the liability of paying rent to them particularly in view of his admission that after their refusal he had not remitted rent to them through money order. Issue No.2 regarding personal need of the petitioners was also decided in favour of the petitioners. Under issue No.4 the respondent was found entitled to the adjustment of Rs.6,000 spent by him on the repair/construction of southern wall and roofs of the house in question out of the monthly rent already deposited by him in favour of Khalid Mahrnood, the previous owner. In view of the findings on Issues Nos.1 and 2 the petition was granted and the ejectment of respondent was ordered by the learned Rent Controller, Lahore.
' Feeling aggrieved Muhammad Yousaf respondent filed an appeal which was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore on 11-1-1986 and the findings on Issues Nos.1 and 2 were reversed and ejectment petition was dismissed. Hence, this writ petition.
3. The learned Additional District Judge held that the respondent was entitled to adjustment of the amount spent by him on repairs of the house and had also deposited rent in the Court and as such was not guilty of any wilful default. The finding on the issue of personal need was set aside on the ground that the petitioners were fully aware of the fact that the house which they were purchasing would not have been readily available to them for occupation because the respondent was occupying it as a tenant.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Before me only finding of the learned Additional District Judge on the question of personal need is assailed. It is stated that it stands fully established that the petitioners do not own any other property except the disputed house and that one of them namely Mst. Bushra was living in the house of her husband's brother.
' It has come in evidence that the house where Mst. Bushra is putting up is insufficient for her need and the petitioners do not independently own any other house. Their father appearing as their attorney stated that the house in dispute had been purchased by the petitioners for their personal residence. He admitted that he owned some other houses which were not habitable, being dilapidated. He further stated that it was for this reason that his other children were also living with him. The rebuttal evidence led by the respondent is not convincing and is only to the effect that the petitioners can conveniently reside at the place already in their occupation. This is not sufficient to rebut or refute the claim of the petitioners that they require the house in dispute in good faith for their bona fide personal need. It is quite natural that everybody desires that his living condition should improve and that he should live comfortably in a better atmosphere. Mst. Bushra being a married woman would certainly belonging to live independently. There was thus, nothing unusual or unnatural for her to seek ejectment of Muhammad Yousaf respondent from the house owned by her for her independent residence. The reason advanced by the learned Additional District Judge that if the petitioners had A desired to live independently they should not have bought the house in dispute is not legally sustainable. It means that excepting the tenants in occupation the others should not go for sale and purchase of such property.
5. In view of the above circumstances the bona fide personal need of the petitioners particularly Mst. Bushra Kausar stands fully proved and the finding on this point arrived at by the learned Rent Controller was quite in accordance with law and facts and there was no justification for setting it aside by the learned Appellate Court. Accordingly, I accept the petition declare the order of the learned Additional District Judge to be without any lawful authority and of no legal effect and set aside his finding on issue No.2 and restore that of the learned Rent Controller and accept the ejectment petition and direct the respondent to vacate the house in dispute and put the petitioners into possession within four months.