KHALIL-UR-REHMAN KHAN, J.- This appeal was directed against the order dated 16.9.1987 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Lahore Cantonment, whereby eviction petition filed by the respondent-landlord was accepted and the appellant-tenant was ordered to be evicted from the demised premises.
2. That facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal arc that the respondent-landlord submitted an eviction petition on 20.7.1985 seeking eviction of the appellant from the veranda It out by the respondent and being used as a shop for shoe making as it was staled to be a nuisance created by the appellant for the reason that the Veranda is an integral part of the sitting room of the properly as the window opens in the said Veranda and that the veranda is required by the respondent in good faith lor his own use and occupation. This petition was resisted and the learned Rent Controller framed one issue viz. Whether the petitioner requires the disputed portion for his own use and occupation in good' faith? The petitioner entered the witness-box as P.W.1 in support of his own case while the appellant-tenant besides appearing himself as R.W.3 produced two witnesses, namely, Muhammad Yameen (R.W.1) and Abdul Ghafoor (R.W.2). Learned Rent Controller thereafter vide impugned eviction of the appellant holding that the disputed premises were It out to the respondent (appellant) as a .Veranda and no subsequent alterations would change its original character and that the disputed premises was required in good faith by the petitioner (respondent) for his own use and occupation. This appeal was fixed for hearing yesterday but was adjourned to today in order to provide another opportunity to learned counsel for the respondent to contest the appeal. Learned counsel for the respondent was awaited till 0-30 am but he has failed to turn up.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have also gone through the record. The Additional Rent Controller hits not discussed the ev idence produced before him by the parlies at all. A perusal of the statement of the landlord alone would show that the impugned order cannot be sustained. The landlord admitted that the veranda was rented out for the purposes of conducting business, lt was. Therefore. Not right to say that;subsequent alterations would not change the original character of the tenanted premises. The second finding that hie premises are required in good faith is also unfounded and unwarranted as the respondent-landlord admitted in cross-examination that he has another shop in which he is conducting his business. Not even a single word was stated by the landlord to establish that the premises are needed for his business.
The case that he made out in the statement is that because of shoe-making business being conducted in the shop since 1977 when the premises were It out he feels disturbed. It is pertinent to note that firstly no issue was framed with reference to the alleged nuisance and in these circumstances the evidence in this respect should not have been allowed to be brought on record.
Even if this irregularity is ignored still no case ol nuisance is made out as the business of shoe- making is being conducted since 1977 and in these circumstances in July 1985 when eviction petition was filed the respondent-landlord cannot come out with the plea of nuisance.
For the reasons given above it is apparent that the Additional Rent Controller tiding arbitrarily accepted the eviction petition and ordered eviction of the appellant. The order dated 16.9.1987 is.
Therefore, set aside. The findings of Additional Rent controller returned on Issue No.1 is hereby reversed and it is held that the respondent-landlord This failed to prove the issue. The eviction petition is resultantly dismissed. The appeal thus succeeds and is accepted with cost.