This Constitutional petition filed by the tenant, Bata (Pakistan) Limited seeks to call in question the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Lahore dated 22-10-1991 whereby the appeal of the respondent-landlord against the dismissal of his eviction petition has been accepted and the petitioner-tenant directed to vacate the shop in dispute and hand over its possession to the landlord.
2. Facts necessary for the disposal of this petition, briefly stated, are that Tahir Umar, the respondent-landlord sought the eviction of the petitioner--tenant from the shop in dispute on the sole ground that he bona fide required it for his own use and occupation. The Rent Controller after framing the necessary issues and recording the evidence adduced by the parties found that the respondent-landlord admitted in his cross-examination that one shop in the same premises was in his family's possession which fact he had not disclosed in the eviction petition nor had given any explanation as to why the said shop was not suitable for his needs. It was accordingly held that the landlord had failed to establish his bona fide personal need with the result that his ejectment petition was dismissed vide order dated 18-10-1986. The appellate Court upheld the decision of the Rent Controller. The respondent-landlord then invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court by filing W.P. No.4444 of 1987 which was accepted on the ground that it was not the case of the petitioner-tenant that the adjacent shop was exclusively occupied by; the respondent-landlord and the fact that it was occupied by him and his family members did not debar him from seeking vacation of the shop in dispute of the purpose of doing his independent business therein. The learned Judge. who decided that writ petition further observed that the Additional District Judge erred in not giving effect to the plea of respondent-landlord that after the death of his father, other co-sharers, under an arrangement, had relinquished their rights in the tenancy in his favour and permitted him to occupy the shop in dispute for his own use. In this view of the matter, case was remanded to the learned Additional District Judge for deciding the respondent's appeal afresh.
Petitioner agitated the matter in a petition for Special Leave to Appeal which was dismissed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan on 13-4-1991 with the observation "the reasons which prevailed with the High Court in setting aside the appellate order are well-grounded and in conformity with law laid down by this Court". It appears that the petitioner's counsel made a grievance before the Supreme Court that the High Court has made certain observations which may influence the decision of the Appellate Court in determining the issue of bona fide of the respondent's requirement. It was observed by the Supreme Court that the apprehension was ill-founded. "The view expressed by the High Court, while setting aside the judgment of the Appellate Court, was not intended to influence the post-remand hearing of the case and foreclose the adjudication by the Appellate Court of the issue aforesaid".
3. On remand, the learned Additional District Judge after thorough scrutiny of the evidence on record and examining the relevant law on the subject repelled the petitioner's contention that the respondent-landlord was primarily interested in the enhancement of rent and that the proceedings initiated for his eviction were not bona fide. Learned Additional District Judge observed in this behalf that there was nothing on the record to show that the respondent himself was a party to any negotiations for enhancement of rent nor was it stated by any of the petitioner's witnesses that the respondent had ever directly demanded from the petitioner any specific amount by way of increase in the rent. Learned Appellate Court also found no substance in the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the failure of the respondent-landlord to disclose in the eviction petition the necessary details about the other shops belonging to his father reflected upon his bona fides. Learned Additional District Judge observed that since all the shops belonging to the respondent's father including the shop in dispute and the shop adjoining thereto were situate in the same premises, petitioner who was doing business there for the last more than two decades must be having full information regarding the ownership/occupation of all these shops and, therefore, the respondent-landlord may not have considered it necessary to mention all their particulars in the eviction petition. In the circumstances, it was held that non--disclosure complained of could not be attributed to want of bona fides on the part of the respondent. Learned Additional District Judge also took the view that since the respondent was not in exclusive possession of the adjoining shop, it was not necessary for him to show that it was not suitable for his needs. It was held that the respondent not being in the exclusive possession the said shop could legitimately seek the vacation of the shop in dispute for running his independent business therein particularly when other legal heirs of his father had surrendered their rights in his favour to enable him to occupy it for his use. Learned Additional District Judge finally held that on the evidence produced by the respondent-landlord, his personal need for the shop in dispute was clearly established. His appeal was accordingly accepted vide the impugned order. Hence the present petition by the tenant.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-landlord at the limine stage.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Additional District Judge has completely ignored the evidence of three witnesses produced by the petitioner and the documentary evidence Exh.Rl to R5. It was submitted that these documents related to the negotiations held between -the parties regarding the increase in rent and the offer to sell the property in dispute to the petitioner. The contention of the learned counsel does not appear to be quite well-based.
Petitioner led evidence to the effect that the respondent-landlord did not really need the premises in dispute and he only wanted the rent to be enhanced. Petitioner's witnesses also deposed that the respondent was in possession of an adjacent shop where he was doing the business of Garments and Shoes. An noted in para. 3 ante, the learned Additional District Judge duly considered these pleas of the petitioner with reference to the evidence on record and repelled them with good reasons. Petitioner's evidence regarding the enhancement of rent was duly attended to and it was observed that the respondent was not a party to the negotiations for enhancement and that the petitioner's witnesses had not deposed to any direct demand by the respondent for any specific increase in the rent. It cannot, therefore, be legitimately complained that the evidence of the petitioner has been completely ignored by the learned Additional District Judge. Needless to observe that appreciation of evidence is the exclusive function of the Courts of competent jurisdiction which function has been duly performed by the learned Additional District Judge and this Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction cannot undertake the re-appraisal of evidence.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that it was in evidence that the respondent- landlord was in possession of an adjacent shop where he was running the business of shoes and general store. He was, therefore, required to prove that the shop in his possession was not suitable for his needs which he failed to do and in the circumstances, his bona fide need for the shop in dispute was not established I am afraid, the argument as canvassed is not available to the learned counsel. In the earlier round of litigation, it was not the case of the petitioner that the adjoining shop was exclusively occupied by the respondent-landlord. In fact, contention raised on his behalf as mentioned in para 5 of the judgment rendered in W.P.4444-87 was that the adjoining shop was in occupation of the respondent and his family members. Proceeding on these premises, it was held that the respondent was not debarred from having that shop vacated for the purpose of doing his independent business therein. That being so, learned Appellate Court below has rightly held that since the respondent was not in exclusive possession of the adjoining shop, it was not necessary for him to show that it was not suitable for his needs and that he could legitimately seek the vacation of the shop in -dispute for running his independent business therein. Law by now is fairly well settled that a landlord occupying another shop jointly with others is not required to show that it is not suitable/sufficient for his needs nor is he debarred from seeking vacation of his own shop for doing his business therein independently. Refer Ehsan Karim and another v. Nisar Ahmad (1979 CLC 801), Sardar Khan v. Riaz Ahmad and others (1986 SCM R 1981). It may pertinently be observed that other co-sharers had surrendered their rights in the shop in dispute in favour of the respondent-landlord permitting him to occupy the same for his own use which fact is admitted even by the petitioner's witness Talaat Manzoor R.W.2.
7. Yet another contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the respondent- landlord was only interested in the enhancement of rent and the personal need set up was not bona fide. In support of his contention, learned counsel heavily relied upon the documents Exh.R-1 to R-5 which are the reports prepared by the petitioner's officers and submitted to the Headquarter. In only two of these reports (Exh.R-1 and Exh.R-3), reference was made to the demand for enhancement of rent. In Exh.R-2, it was stated that the attorney of the owners "is not interested in settling the issue". In the remaining two documents (Exh.R-4 and R-5), it was stated that the case of ejectment was approaching the final stage and permission was accordingly sought to settle the rent with the landlords at enhanced rate. Be that as it may, the respondent-landlord himself is not shown to be a party to any negotiations for enhancement of rent and it has been rightly so observed by the learned Additional District Judge. Even otherwise, demand for higher rent does not necessarily militate against the bona fides of personal requirement if the same is otherwise proved by the evidence on the record. Refer Peerzada Rafiq Ahmad v. Chaudhry Abdul Rehman (1980 SCM R 772) wherein it was held "that a demand of higher rent by itself does not cast any doubts about the personal bona fide requirements if the factum of bona fide requirements is independently proved". While dealing with this contention, it may also pertinently be noted that during the course of hearing of this petition on 22-1-1992, learned counsel for the petitioner in the presence of Mr. Rashid Siddiqui, Superintendent, Lease and Rent Department of the petitioner made an offer to enhance the rent up to Rs.15,000 per month on the condition that the respondent should agree to lease out the premises in dispute to the petitioner for a period of three years. The respondent present in Court rejected this offer straightaway and firmly stated that he was not willing to lease out the premises even for a single day on any amount of rent. 'this circumstance sufficiently establishes the bona fides of the respondent's requirement and negates the petitioner's contention that the respondent was only interested in the enhancement of rent and the need set up by him was not bona fide. Refer Syed Abdul Oadeer v. Mst. Naseem Akhtar 1993 M LD 2512. In the cited case, the tenant had offered to pay the double of the existing rent. The offer was refused by the landlady which fact, it was held, supported her bona fide requirement for the premises in dispute.
8. As shown above, none of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner has any merit. Needless to observe that the learned Additional District Judge has proceeded on correct premises, legal as also factual, in holding that the shop in dispute was bona fide required by the respondent-landlord for his own use and occupation. The impugned order, supported as it is by the evidence on record which has been duly appreciated by the learned Additional District Judge is not open to interference in Constitutional jurisdiction. Writ petition has no merit and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine:
9. When I announced the order dismissing the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner made a request that since the petitioner was running its business in the premises in dispute for the last 24 years, it should be allowed some reasonable time for vacating the premises in dispute. I asked the landlord present in Court whether he was willing to accede to the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He quite frankly stated that he will not execute the impugned orders of ejectment for another six months.