MALIK MUHAMMAD. QAYYUM, J.- On 12th September, 1984 Muhammad Saeed petitioner herein, filed an application under section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 against respondent No. 1 with respect to a house bearing No.80-Ravi Park, Ravi Road, Lahore, who is a tenant at the monthly rate of Rs.200/- on the sole ground that the premises were required by the petitioner for his personal use. It was averred that the accommodation in his possession was insufficient for his needs. The petition was contested by respondent No. 1. The Rent Controller after framing the necessary issues recorded the evidence of the parties and proceeded to dismiss the ejectment petition on 12.12.1987, holding that the premises were not required by the petitioner in good faith for his own use. These findings were affirmed by the Additional District Judge, Lahore who dismissed the appeal of the petitioner on 20.4.1988. The petitioner has now approached this Court by filing the present constitutional petition.
2. I have heard Ch. Khurshid Ahmad, Advocate, who has appeared on behalf of the petitioner. No one has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent and the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner have been heard in his absence.
In the ejectment petition, it was averred by the petitioner that his family consists of i.e married sons, their wives and 12 children. It was stated that 26 family members were living in a 4 marlas house which is insufficient for their needs and the house was required by the petitioner to accommodate his two sons Amjid Saeed and Muzammil Saeed along with their families. It was alleged that the respondent had already built his own house in Allama Iqbal Town, Lahore. In order to prove this contention, the petitioner appeared as P.W.3 and stated that .The accommodation in his possession comprises of 4 rooms, 3 stores, a bath room, a Kitchen, a Lateritic and two Galleries. He explained that he has 5 married sons, one of whom is living in Sharja while two of his daughters are also married. He deposed that he has 4/5 grand children and the premises Were required for the occupation of his 2 sons, Amjid Saeed and Muzammil Saeed. In the cross- examination, it was stated that it was correct that another house bearing No.825/E belongs to his father who had died.
He stated that he had relinquished his share in favour of his other brothers who were living in the house. Respondent No. 1 appeared as R.W.1 and deposed that the petitioner had sufficient accommodation in his possession as in addition to a hall, he had three rooms, on the first floor plus three rooms, a Barsati and Store on the second floor in his occupation.
3. The grounds which prevailed with the# Rent Controller for non-suiting the petitioner were that both the witnesses produced by the petitioner were his relatives being his son-in-law and son and no independent witness has been produced. On the basis of entries in the Excise and Taxation Register (Exh. R-3) it was found that the petitioner has 6 residential rooms on ground floor, 3 rooms on the first floor and 3 rooms on the second floor in which he was living which clearly belied the stand taken by the petitioner and he was not entitled to have his house vacated from the respondent. From the judgment of the Addl. District Judge while dismissing the appeal, it appears that he did not apply his independent mind to the evidence on the record but instead adopted the same reasonings which prevailed with the Rent Controller and the main ground on the basis of which the appeal was dismissed was entries in the PT-I register maintained by the Excise and Taxation Department as also the fact that the petitioner had not proved that house No.81 owned by him was still in occupation of the tenant.
4. After having considered the evidence on the record, it appears that the document Exh. R-3, (copy of the Excise and Taxation Register) has been misread by the Rent Controller as also the Addl.
District Judge. The finding that this document proves that the petitioner was in occupation of 12 rooms, is based upon misinterpretation and misreading of this document. While construing the entries in column 4, which is to the effect that both the Tribunals below have failed to consider that according to this entry, there were only 6 rooms, 3 of which were on the 1st floor while the other 3 arc on the 2nd floor and not 6 rooms plus 3 rooms on the 1st floor and 3 rooms on the 2nd floor as held by lower Courts. This fact is obvious from the calculation of the rental value mentioned against the relevant entries. There was as such no occasion for the Addl. District Judge or the Rent Controller to hold that the petitioner was in possession of 12 rooms and that the statement made by him that he had only six rooms in his possession was false. The insistence of the Rent Controller as also the Addl. District Judge that independent evidence should have been produced in this case by the petitioner is not understandable, lt is since long well established that the statement of the landlord alone if otherwise confidence inspiring, is enough to prove his personal use. In the present case, apart from appearing himself the petitioner had also examined his son as P.W.2 and his son- in-law as PW.1. The reasoning which prevailed with the Tribunals below is clearly contrary to law declared by the superior Courts(See Muhammad Zaman vs. Mahboob Ellahi (P.L.D 1981 Lah. 609).
4. As regards property No.81, it is to be seen that in para 5 of the ejectment petition, it was stated that the house was in occupation of another tenant against whom the ejectment petition had been filed by the petitioner in order to accommodate two other sons of the petitioner. Though the contents of para 5 of the petition were controverted in the written statement but there was no specific denial with regard to the fact that the house was in possession of the tenants and against whom an ejectment petition had been filed by the petitioner. The explanation by the landlord in the ejectment petition that the house was needed to accommodate-his two other sons while the present house was required for Amjid Saeed and Muzammil Saeed were not adverted to by the Addl. District Judge or the Rent Controller. While appearing as RW.1, respondent No. 1 did not utter a single word on this aspect. It is thus obvious that the Rent Controller as also the Addl. District Judge have acted more on conjecture th#t on evidence while non-suiting the petitioner.
For the foregoing reasons, this petition is accepted, the impugned judgment of the Addl. District Judge and the order of the Rent Controller are declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect with the result that the petition for ejectment filed by the petitioner stands accepted with no order as to costs. Respondent No. 1 is allowed one month time to vacate the premises in question.