1. ' The appellant filed three ejectment applications against three tenants. One ejectment application was filed against Abdul Karim (F R A/275/89) and the other was filed against Sarwar Qadri and others (F R A 282/89) in respect of one shop rented out to each of them. The third ejectment application was filed against Juma Khan (F R A 279/89) in respect of godown. In the ejectment application filed against Abdul Karim it was stated that the shop is required to rehabilitate her daughter Saeeda Zaheer and Anwar Jamal the son in law; whereas in the case filed against Sarwar Qadri and others it was alleged that this shop is required to rehabilitate and for use of Farida Zaheer another daughter of the appellant.
2. ' First I will deal with these two appeals with regard to the shops as the facts and questions of law are common. It may also be mentioned that the appellant had also taken another ground that she had submitted a plan for reconstruction alleged to have been approved in the year 1983. The validity of this plan was, however, found to have expired and no renewal has been obtained. In these circumstances Mr. Abul Khair has made a statement that the appellant does not wish to press this ground to seek ejectment against the tenants. He further states that if the plan is approved afresh the appellant may take necessary action if she desired to do so. However, for the purposes of these appeals, it is sufficient to state that the ejectment on the ground of reconstruction is not pressed as the plan has expired. The only ground left is personal requirement of the daughter and son-in-law of the appellant. It may be stated at the outset that son-in-law does not fall within the categories of persons for whose requirement ejectment application can be filed. Therefore the requirement of son-in-law cannot be pressed for seeking ejectment.
3. There can be no doubt about the fact that a landlord can seek ejectment for the requirement of his son or daughter be she married or not. It is therefore to be considered whether personal requirement of such daughters has been made 8 out. In F.R.A 275/89 Shop No,2 is occupied by Abdul Karim as tenant and it is required by the appellant, her daughter Saeeda Zaheer and her husband Anwar Jamal. It is alleged that Anwar Jamal is jobless. There is nothing in evidence to show that Saeeda Zaheer intends to carry on any business in the shop. If at all any need is established it is in respect of Anwar Jamal and for his requirement the appellant is not entitled to seek ejectment. The affidavit of Saeeda, her husband or attorney has not been filed to show in what manner she requires the premises and for what purpose. Even the affidavit of All Akbar in support of appellant's C case does not satisfactory state the grounds for requirement of the appellant Saeeda Zaheer. Therefore, the appeal so far Abdul Karim in concerned (F R A 275/89) is dismissed.
4. The second Appeal No,282/89 is in respect of Shop No,1 occupied by Saeeda Qadri. This shop is required for appellant's daughter Farida Zaheer and her son-in-law Khurram Saeed. Farida's husband is carrying on business of dying in a cabin. He has employed 2/3 servants and perhaps in order to accommodate his business the appellant filed this application for ejectment. No evidence has been produced on record to show in what manner Farida Zaheer requires the shop, nor it has been alleged that she is a partner with her husband in dying business. In this regard the affidavit of Farida, her attorney or her husband would have been material to explain that she is in a position to carry on business. But on all these points, the appellant's evidence is completely silent. Therefore, this appeal is also dismissed.
5. ' The third appeal namely F R A 279/89 filed against Juma Khan is in respect of a godown. It has been alleged that the appellant requires this premises for the residence of her daughter Hameeda Zaheer who is residing in a rented house. Except this statement which is supported by Ali Akbar no other evidence has been produced. Even Hameeda and her husband Saleem Baig have not appeared to prove that the premises is required by them. In this appeal, the appellant has filed photo copy of two rent receipts to show that Hameeda is residing in a rented house. If this situation is established then perhaps the appellant may be able to prove her bona fide requirement in respect of the premises occupied by respondent Juma Khan.
6. Mr. Ismail Padhiar the learned counsel for the respondent has contended that premises was rented out as a godown and was used for commercial purpose. This will not be a bar for seeking ejectment for residential purpose. The learned counsel then contended that plan for reconstruction of the house militates against the bona fide requirement of the landlady as in that case she wants to reconstruct two shops and no residential accommodation is provided. This is true but as the appellant has abandoned the idea of reconstruction it may well be true that she will continue with the existing construction and requires the godown for the purposes of residence of her daughter.
7. The evidence produced on both the sides is scanty. The circumstances of the case show that some evidence of substantial nature relating to the fact that Hameeda is residing in a rented house seems to be available but has not been brought on record. Although as appellate Court it was possible to record such evidence but it would be just and proper if the same is recorded by the learned Controller so that a chance of rebuttal may also be available to the respondent to plead his case. In these circumstances, I set aside the order of the learned Controller, remand the case with direction to record the evidence afresh on issue No,1 only as issue No,2 has not been pressed.
8. Both the parties shall be entitled to lead their evidence and the case will accordingly be decided by the Controller.