1. ' ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.---This petition arises out of an ejectment application filed by respondents against petitioner on the ground that petitioner had committed default in payment of rent and the premises were also required by the respondents for personal bona fide use for carrying on their own businees.
2. ' Petitioner denied both these assertions and on the basis of evidence recorded in the case, learned Rent Controller dismissed the application. However, on appeal, at the instance of respondents learned Judge in the High Court upheld respondents' plea that they bona fide require the premises for their own use and on this ground he allowed the appeal and directed petitioner's eviction from demised premises.
3. ' The reasons that prevailed with the learned Rent Controller to reach the aforesaid conclusion may be reproduced hereunder:-- "The approach of the Rent Controller to the case is absolutely misconceived and in disregard of the principles laid down for appreciation of evidence for judging the personal requirement expressed by the landlord. The learned Rent Controller while analysing the evidence was much influenced by the fact that Shops Nos.105, 34 and 34-A were owned by the other sons of the applicant and as such this amounted to concealment of material fact. He however, failed to notice that the applicant in his application for ejectment has pleaded the ground of his own personal requirement and that of his sons Kh. Tanveer and Kh. Hafeez. There is sufficient material on record both in the form of evidence of the appellant and his witnesses as well as the admission of the respondents that the applicant Kh. Bashir did not own and possess any shop in the market except the one which is in possession of the respondents. It was neither suggested to Kh. Bashir in his evidence nor there is anything in evidence of the respondents to show that Kh. Bashir had any other place of business where he is running his business. It is therefore, sufficiently established from the evidence of the appellant that the requirement expressed by Kh. Bashir for the shop was neither disproved nor shaken in cross-examination. The Additional ground mentioned by the appellant Kh. Bashir in his application was that he needed the premises for his two sons Kh. Tanveer and Kh. Hafeez also. It is nowhere in the evidence of either the applicant or of the respondents that these two sons of the appellant Kh. Bashir owned or possessed any shop in their name in the urban area. The fact that other sons of Kh. Bashir namely Kh. Khurshid and Kh. Imran possessed shop in the market could not disentitle either the appellant or his sons Kh. Hafeez and Kh. Tanveer to claim possession of the shop in occupation of the respondents for personal bona fide requirement."
4. ' Mr. S. H. Rizvi, learned counsel appearing in support of the petition merely repeated the arguments that were canvassed before the High Court in opposition to the appeal. We find that all these have been adequately dealt with and rejected for cogent and proper reasons. Learned counsel argues that with the death of Kh. Bashir Ahmad, father of the respondents, who had filed the ejectment application, the entire case stood abated. This argument ignores the fact that petitioners' father had filed the ejectment application on the ground that not only he required the premises for his personal bona fide need, but that the same were also required bona fide by his two sons Khawaja Tanveer and Khawaja Hafeez. Both the aforesaid sons of Khawaja Bashir Ahmad are now joint owners of the shop and it is proved in evidence that neither of them owns any other shop. The original ground set up in the ejectment application filed by their father that his aforesaid two sons also require the demised premises for their bona fide personal use survived in spite of the death of their father and it cannot, therefore, be held that the ejectment. Application abated on the death of the original applicant.
5. ' For these reasons, this petition has no merits, and is accordingly dismissed.