' On 16th July, 1988 Mst. Wazir Begum petitioner herein filed an application under section 13 of the Punjan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 against respondent No,1 Z_ afar Iqbal seeking his eviction from a house situate in Bhati Gate, Lahore on the ground that it was required in good faith for the use and occupation of her daughter Mst. Basar Jabeen who was living with her in laws. The application was resisted by the respondent who denied that the house was required by the petitioner for the use of her daughter.
2. In support of her case the petitioner produced her husband and attorney Muhammad Nawaz son of Farid Ahmad as A.W.1, Muhammad Israil as A.W.2. In rebuttal, respondent No,1 produced Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din R.W.1, Muhammad Rafique R.W2 and appeared himself as R.W3.
3. By means of his order dated 28th January 1990 the Rent Controller accepted the ejectment petition holding that the house was required bona fide and in good faith for the use of the daughter of the petitioner. It was observed that the said daughter was living with her in laws in only one room and that no positive evidence was led by respondent No,1 to show that this assertion on the part of the petitioner was false.
4. Aggrieved by this order respondent No,1 filed an appeal which was accepted by the Additional District Judge at Lahore who while reversing the finding of the learned Rent Controller held that as neither the petitioner nor her daughter for whose use the premises were required had appeared as witness the need cannot be said to be bona fide. This judgment of the Additional District Judge has been brought under challenge by the petitioner by filing this Constitutional petition.
5. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Hanif Akhtar Advocate in support of this petition. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondents.
From a perusal of the judgment of the Additional District Judge, it is evident that the petitioner has been non:suited on the ground that neither she herself nor her daughter for whose use the house was required had appeared as a witness and she had as such, failed to prove that the house was required bona tide and in good faith for the occupation of her daughter. Unfortunately, however, while coming to this concksion the Additional District Judge failed to appreciate that the attorney of the petitioner Muhammad Nawaz who was also her husband had appeared as A.W.1 and in these circumstances it was not necessary that the petitioner who is a lady or her daughter should have appeared as a witness. The approach of the Additional District Judge is wholly erroneous besides being contrary to the law declared by the superior Courts. (See Arshad Umar and another v. Begum Nazrul Askari (PLD 1985 SC 38). There is no law which A enjoins a petitioner to appear as his own witness. The requirement, if any, in the present case stood sufficiently satisfied by the appearance of the husband of the petitioner as A.W.1 who was also her attorney. The Additional District Judge has failed to consider that it was admitted by all the witnesses produced by respondent No,1 himself that the daughter for whose use the house in dispute was required was living with her in-laws. In these circumstances her need to live separately in the house belonging to her mother cannot be said to be unjustified.
' For the reasons aforesaid this petition is accepted, the judgment of the Additional District Judge dated 24-5-1990 is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect with the result that the order of the Rent Controller dated 28-1-1990 stands restored. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
' Respondent No,1 shall vacate the premises within a period of one month from today.