' The petitioner who is a tenant and was cited as a respondent in the ejectment petition filed by the respondent No,1. The ejectment was claimed on the ground of personal use. It was pleaded in the ejectment petition that the petitioner is running a Printing Press in the rented premises commonly known as 261, Sheesh Mahal Road, Lahore and his landlord is pressing him hard to vacate the premises. The tenant resisted the ejectment petition on both factual as well as legal plane. The learned Rent Controller seized of the matter accordingly framed following issues:-- "(1) Whether the premises in dispute are required by the petitioner in good faith for his own use and occupation?
(2) Relief."
2. The landlord in order to prove issue No,1 examined Turrab Ali, his landlord as P.W.1 and himself appeared as P.W2. The petitioner-tenant in rebuttal examined Faz-ul-Rehman as R.W.1 and himself appeared as R.W. No,2. The learned Rent Controller after hearing the arguments answered the issue No,1 in favour of the landlord and proceeded to accept the petition and ordered ejectment of the petitioner, who assailed this order through an appeal before the appellate authority under Rent Restriction Ordinance. The appeal was dismissed by the learned appellate authority vide order dated 16-11-1982. The petitioner has now impugned both the orders of respondents Nos,2 and 3 through this Constitutional petition.
3. The petition was admitted to regular hearing and notices were issued to the respondents. The respondent No,1 landlord has appeared and contested the petition while the other respondents were proceeded ex parte.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, who has argued that the landlord claimed ejectment of his client on the ground that he is running press in a rented premises and his landlord is pressing him hard to vacate the premises. On the other hand, the petitioner resisted the application and clearly pleaded that the landlord does not require the premises at all. The application is based on maia fides and was filed because the petitioner failed to enhance the rent and pay advance rent. It is added that earlier the property was jointly owned by the respondent No,1 and his brotheRs, The last rent note is dated 13-7-1975. The rate of rent was fixed at Rs,200 and the landlords received a sum of Rs, 5,250 in advance. This amount was to be adjusted at the rate of Rs,50 per month. This way rent was to be paid as Rs,150 per month. Thereafter the landlords proceeded to partition the property owned by them and the premises in dispute fell to the share of respondent No,1, who proceeded to get another rent note dated 3-11-1976 executed from the petitioner. This rent note is Exh. P3 on record while the earlier rent note dated 23-7-1975 is Exh. R.1.
The arguments were summed up with the submission that landlord miserably failed to prove the issue, therefore, Courts below have wrongly and illegally ordered the ejectment of the petitioner.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for trespondent No,1 landlord has argued that the issue was proved to the hilt by the statements of Turrab All and his client himself. It is added that the landlord was not in possession of any other premises in the urban area, therefore, need is genuine and bona fide. The application was rightly allowed. The learned counsel further submitted that the factual controversy has been concluded by the concurrent finding of Courts below, therefore, this petition merits dismissal. In this behalf, learned counsel has relied on the cases of Dildar Hussain v.
Niaz Muhammad Dar and another (1985 SCM R 1769), Muhammad Fazil v. Sheikh Muhammad Yusuf and another (1985 CLC 614), Muhammad Sharif and another v. Muhammad Afzal Sohail etc. (PLD 1981 SC 246) and Muhammad Naseem v. Azinat Khan (1982 SCM R 1132).
6. I have given my anxious considerations to the arguments of the learned counsel for the tenant and landlord and gone through the record as well as cases referred to by the learned counsel for respondent No,1. The landlord pleaded in the petition that he is running press in a rented premises and since his landlord is pressing him hard to vacate the premises as he wanted to sell the same, therefore, he requires the premises in dispute in good faith for his personal use and occupation.
This precisely is the case of respondent No,1 as contained in para. 2 of the ejectment petition appended as Annexure 'B'. The landlord doing so clearly described the use to which the premises are to be put up after eviction of the petitioner. Now the question arises whether the landlord successfully proved his bona fide need or not. The statements of P.W.1 and P.W.2 are whole of the evidence of the petitioner to prove the issue. Now when the statements of the P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 are compared then certain very material contradictions are noted:-
(i) P.W. 1 stated that he has relations with respondent No,1 for 6/7 yeaRs, On the other hand, the respondent No,1 has stated that he has friendship with the P.W. 1 for last 12/13 years; ' P.W.1 stated that the respondent No,1 owed an amount of Rs,55,000 to him and he filed a suit for recovery of the same which was decreed in November, 1976 and in lieu of the decree he got the three shops from respondent No,1. As against this the respondent No,1 has stated that he gifted the shops 3/4 months back and gift deed is in writing and the P.W. 1 got the same transferred from Court. Neither any decree of the Court nor alleged gift deed has been produced; and Furthermore the P.W. 1 is definitely interested witness as is clear from his statement to the effect that he is aware of the number of cases in which he appeared as a witness of respondent No,1. He however, in the end stated that he appeared as a witness in two cases. He also admitted to have appeared as a witness in the cases of Rana Mahmood and Rana Muhammad Yousaf brothers of the respondent No,1. This obviously shows that Turrab All is an interested witness and at the beck and call of respondent No,1 and his brothers and not an independent witness. Neither any rent note in respect of 261-Sheesh Mahal Road, Lahore was produced nor any witness of tenancy nor scribe of the alleged rent note nor any receipt were produced. The oral evidence of the petitioner does not inspire any confidence.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that according to section 4 of the West Pakistan Press and Publications Ordinance (Ordinance XXX of 1963) a keeper of Printing Press was to make a declaration. The petitioner alongwith writ petition has appended a declaration of the respondent No,1 as Annexure 'M'. The same is dated 16-4-1975 but it pertains to Shops Nos,1 and 2 at Data Darbar Road, Lahore while the office address of the respondent No,1 is given as Rajput Market Urdu Bazar, Lahore. It was admitted by the respondent No,1 in his statement that he was maintaining office in his premises known as Rajput Market. Moreover, the respondent No,1 in spite of the opportunity did not file a written statement and controvert this fact. The learned counsel for respondent Not when confronted with this document submitted that according to the proviso to subsection (2) of section 4 no fresh declaration was necessary. Before proceeding to dilate this point any further it is relevant to refer to section 4, which reads as under:- "4. Keeper of printing press to make declaration.---(1) No person shall keep in his possession any press for the printing of books or papers, unless he had made and subscribed before the District Magistrate within whose local jurisdiction such press may be, a declaration in Form A or such other form as may be prescribed.
(2) As often as the place where a printing press is kept is changed, a fresh declaration shall be necessary: ' Provided that where the change is for a period not exceeding sixty days and the place to which the printing press is shifted is within the jurisdiction of the same District Magistrate no fresh declaration shall be necessary, if,---
(a) the keeper of the press continues to be the same; and
(b) within twenty-four hours of the change, the keeper of the press informs the District Magistrate in writing of the change."
' It is clear from the provision of law that a keeper of Printing Press has to make a declaration. The proviso relied by the learned counsel for respondent No,1 is not relevant because according to proviso if permises are shifted for a period not exceeding 60 days and new premises to which the Printing Press is shifted is within the jurisdiction of the same D.M. Then no fresh declaration is required. Tee learned counsel for the landlord tried to argue that the second part of the proviso is independent. The arguments are misconceived. The proviso only pertains to temporary shifting and is not applicable to permanent shifting. In that case a fresh declaration is must. It is not a case of the landlord that he temporarily shifited the Printing Press. This is not all. There are two further conditions attached to temporary shifting mainly that the keeper continues to be the same and he has informed D.M. Within twently-four hours of such shifting. There is nothing on record as to declaration or compliance of provisions of subsection (2). In fact this was the best evidence to prove that the respondent No,1 is running a Printing Press at Sheesh Mahal Road, Lahore but there was no attempt to bring the same on record and in the absence of dear independent cogent evidence it is not possible to hold that respondent No,1 was running Printing Press.
8. Now coming to the second portion that the Printing Press is housed in the premises of P.W.1. There is nothing on record except the statement of P.W. 1 to prove this plea. The statement of the P.W.1 is a cooked up affair. The best evidence was the rent note and receipts on the one hand and on the other hand scribe and marginal witness of the alleged rent note was the best evidence, which has been withheld. There was no effort on the part of the landlord to prove rent note through secondary evidence. This was essential to prove his personal need. This way the foundation of his claim was missing. The Courts below have not at all adverted to these pivotal points while accepting the ejectment application. So much so the Courts below have not even critically examined the statements of P.W. 1 and P.W.
2.
9. This is not all. The petitioner according to his own statement is owner of a multistoreyed commercial building. He has failed to prove that he does not own or possess any premises suitable for his needs. This was all the more essential in view of the evidence of the petitioner specially R.W.2 and R.W.3, who stated that the respondent No,1 is not running a press and does not require the premises in dispute for this purpose. Even otherwise as according to the statement of P.W.2, landlord the multistoreyed building was not complete when he got the premises 261-Sheesh Mahal Road on rent. The relevant portion reads as under:- ' He further stated that he and his brothers partitioned the property in 1976. It, therefore, follows that if his need was bona fide then he should not have shifted to his own premises and in any case should not have got fresh note executed from the petitioner in his favour. This clearly disproves his plea. Actually this was due to his enxiety to defeat the claim of the petitioner for adjustment of the advance made in 1975 through Exh. R.1. The amount was to be adjusted at the rate of Rs,50 per month.
10. The cases referred to by the learned counsel for respondent No,1 are not relevant as the Courts below have failed to decide the matter in accordance with the established law and precedents of superior Courts. On the other hand,the case of Muhammad Fazil goes against the landlord. The Courts below failed to note that the plea raised by the petitioner was not proved.
11. The upshot of this discussion is that this petition is allowed with costs and the impugned orders dated 28-6-1982 and 16-11-1982 of the respondents Nos,2 and 3 are set aside with costs throughout.