' This is in continuation of this Court's order dated 19-1-1994. The relevant portion of which reads as under:- "This first appeal under section 24 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963, is directed against the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 21-7-1993. The relevant facts are that the respondent is owner of House No,40/302, Khurshid Road, Nisar Colony, Lahore Cantt. The same was let out to the appellant on 9-6-1985 at a monthly rent of Rs,5,500. The same was however subsequently increased and at the moment the appellant is paying Rs,6,500 per month. The respondent filed ejectment petition against the appellant on 28-9-1992. She prayed for a direction to the appellant to hand over the vacant possession of the premises to her as the premises were bona fide required for herself and family members; and secondly, that the tenant is a habitual defaulter and has not paid or tendered rent from 9th April, 1992 to 9th September, 1992. The appellant resisted this petition. The Additional Rent Controller accordingly framed following three issues:--- "(1) Whether the respondent is a rent defaulter? OPP.
(2) Whether the rented premises is bona fidely required by the petitioner in good faith for personal use and family members use occupation? OPP.
(3) Whether the petitioner has been filed with mala fide intentions? OPR."
' The respondent in order to prove Issues Nos.1 and 2 appeared herself. As P.W.1 and examined Muhammad Amin as P.W.2. She produced rent note dated 9-6-1985 as Exh.P.1, notices for vacation of the premises as Exh.P.2, Exh.P.3 and Exh.P.4, the copy of the passport as Exh.P.5 and general power of attorney as Exh.P.6. The appellant in rebuttal appeared himself as R.W.1. He also produced a letter from the father of the landlady as Exh.R.1, receipt of Rs,13,000 as Exh.R.2, Counterfoil of cheques Exh.R.3, letter dated 10-9-1992 as Exh.R.4, Bank Certificate dated 26-1-1993 as Exh.R.5 and other documents etc. ' The Additional Rent Controller after hearing the arguments proceeded to decide issue No,1 against the landlady while issue No,3 was decided against the appellant and issue No,2 was decided in favour of the landlady. The petition was accepted vide order dated 21-7-1993 in view of the finding on issue No,2. The appellant has now assailed this order through the present appeal. The same was admitted to hearing and notice was issued to the respondent and record was requisitioned."
2. The respondent in pursuance of the order dated 19-1-1994 filed amended petition to plead that neither the petitioner nor any member of her family is occupying any residential premises suitable for her need in the Lahore Cantonment or City. It was further added that the petitioner or said member did not vacate any such building without sufficient cause. This was in line with the requirement of section 17(4) of the Act, 1963. The appellant did not resist this application for amendment. The same was allowed vide order dated 2-3-1994. The respondent thereafter submitted amended ejectment petition and the appellant filed reply thereto. Thereafter it was considered whether the controversy between the parties is covered by the issues already framed or an additional issue has to be framed. The learned counsel for the parties very candidly conceded that no further issue is necessitated by this formal amendment, therefore, they do not claim any additional issue.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties in the main appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant in the very outset clarified that the findings on issue No,1 are not disputed by either of the parties while issue No,3 is fully covered by issue No,2, therefore, it does not require separate adjudication. It was for this reason that arguments were addressed by the learned counsel for the parties on issue No,2 alone.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant in support of the appeal argued that the husband of the respondent is serving in. World Bank and is posted in U.SA. While her children are studying again in U.SA. And she, also, residing there, therefore, the premises are not at all required by her. It is added that the requirement is not bona fide and the actual intention is to get the premises vacated and let out at a higher rate to someone else. The learned counsel, in this behalf, has referred to the statement of appellant as R.W.1. Where he alleged that he was sent for by Maj.-Gen. Zia-ud-Din G.O.V. II, Div. Lahore through one Colonel and Captain of M.P. Who came along with five/six Jawans and told the appellant that he should accompany them to the office of GOC. It is added that on account of their attitude he became apprehensive and refused to accompany them. Thereafter they left the house to come back after sometime to inform him that some women will visit the premises in order to make their selection but instead after about 45 minutes Maj.-Gen. Zia-ud-Din and Maj.-Gen. Naseem Rana came there and entered the house. Maj.-Gen. Zia-ud-Din showed all the rooms one after the other to his companion. He was informed that they want to let out this house to a family and Maj.-Gen. Naseem Rana would be conveying the decision to the appellant in this behalf. He was further informed that the women, who were to visit the house for this purpose will not be coming now. The learned counsel in support of his arguments that plea of personal use has not been proved has referred to Muhammad Jamil Butt v. Rana Mansib Ali Khan and others 1993 CLC 2190.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent argued that the story of the visit of M.P. Personnel and two Major-Generals is just a cooked up affair and there is not a grain of truth in it as is clear from the fact that the appellant did not complain to any Court or authority about this incident. It is added that the respondent is a law-abiding citizen and had no intention at any stage to take the law into her hands or to cause any harassment to the appellant. It is submitted that it is crystal clear from the fact that the ejectment petition was already pending when the said Army Officers allegedly tiled to overawe the appellant. The next submission is that admitted position is that the husband of the respondent is retiring from the job with the World Bank in 1995. The respondent has proved through Exh.P.5 that her visa is expiring on 20th May, 1994 and this evidence remained unrebuttal. It is added that the law and facts fully support the plea of the personal use of the respondent. In this behalf, the learned counsel has referred to Muhammad Siddique v.
Muhammad Shoaib 1986 SCM R 1207, Yaqub Masih Jacob v. Mrs. Louisa De Souza 1992 M LD 1240, Mir Sadiq Ali and another v. Ishteaque Ahmed 1992 M LD 331, Mst. Ahmedunnisa and others v. Mst.
Parveen Siraj 1985 SCM R 2012, Messrs Mian Brothers v. Suleman 1989 CLC 494, Abdul Qudus v.
District Judge, Sialkot and others 1982 CLC 2355(2), Shaikh Fazal Din v. Haji Noor Muhammad 1982 CLC 2595 and Mushtaq Ahmad v. Khawaja Mustafa-ul-Hasan 1984 CLC 3093. The arguments are summed up with the submission that in any case subsection (6) of section 17 of the Act, 1963, is a sufficient safeguard against misuse of the plea of personal use by the landlady. In this behalf, the learned counsel has referred to Mst. Naeema Tabassum and another v. Additional District Judge, Gujrat and another 1990 M LD 1217.
6. I have given my anxcious consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
The respondent in order to prove issue No,2 appeared herself as P.W.1. She stated that she is putting up in U.S.A. With her husband, who is employed there in the World Bank. It was added that she wanted to come back and settle at Lahore in the property in dispute. She further deposed that she had been granted non-immigrant visa, which is expiring on 20th May, 1994 and that her family went to America in 1985 for a period of 8/9 years and her husband was going to retire after a period of 2-1/2 or 3 years. This statement is dated 15th May, 1993. P.W.2 Muhammad Amin stated that he used to receive the rent from the appellant, who was told to vacate the premises as the same were bona fide required by the landlady. The respondent also reproduced the copy of her passport as well as the visa as Exh.P5. The appellant as against this evidence appeared himself as R.W.1. He stated that the real intention of the landlady was to get the premises vacated and to let out the same at higher rate of rent. In this behalf he referred to the visit of Major-General Zia-ud- Din and Major-General Naseem Rana and their subordinates.
7. The admitted position is that the husband of the respondent is employed in the World Bank and he went there in 1985. The deputation was for ten years. The landlady as P.W.1 deposed that her visa is expiring on 20th May, 1994 and she produced copy of the passport as Exh.P5. Further that her husband is retiring from the World Bank in 1995. The appellant could not contradict these important pieces of evidence. It is argued in this behalf that the sole statement of the landlord without corroboration was not sufficient to discharge the onus of issue No,2, therefore, the ejectment petition was liable to be dismissed. The argument is not legally sound because even sole statement of the petitioner in an ejectment petition is sufficient to prove personal use particularly when the same is supported by documents and the basic facts were not contradicted by the tenant. I am fortified in my view by the judgment in the case of Muhammad Siddique (supra). The relevant portion reads as under:- "***** The High Court held that the appellate Court in holding that the evidence of the respondent was sufficient to prove his need committed no illegality either of law or procedure which conclusion is unexceptionable as the law does not require any particular number of witnesses to prove a fact. There is therefore, no legal error in the judgment as it is the quality of the defence which determines its acceptance."
' The same was the position in the case of Mushtaq Ahmad Khan (supra) and Yaqub Masih Jacob (supra) while in the case of Mir Sadiq Ali and another (supra) it was held that since the statement of P.W.1 remained unshaken, therefore, personal bona fide need was fully established. The case of Muhammad Jamil Butt relied by the learned counsel is not relevant to the present controversy.
8. Now coming to the question that the respondent and her husband and children were putting up abroad. The landlady as P.W.1 stated that she wants to settle at Lahore while her visa is expiring on 20th May, 1994 and her husband is to retire in 1994-95 remained unrebutted. The law does not debar the landlady, who is putting up abroad to claim the premises for her personal use. The learned counsel for the respondent has rightly referred to the cases of M/s. Mian Brothers (supra), Sheikh Fazal Din (supra) and Ahmedunnisa v. Parveen Siraj 1985 SCM R 2012. In the case of Ahmedunnisa, the Karachi High Court held as under:--- "I am, therefore, of the view that in this case the requirement for personal occupation of the respondent, even though it be temporary and for occasional visits would be regarded as own occupation as long as the premises contained their furniture and belongings and are occupied by them from time to time and the same are not rented out to others."
' The Hon'ble Supreme Court approved this view and observed as under:--- "We wholeheartedly agree with these views, for, otherwise the provisions of the Ordinance would be rendered nugatory in cases where a landlord residing outside Pakistan bona fide requires his own house in Pakistan for his own occupation or use, or for the occupation or use of his spouse or any of his children when they come to visit Pakistan or return for permanent abode."
9. This is not all. The Legislature in its wisdom has provided a safeguard against the misuse of provision of the personal use by the landlord by enacting subsection (6) of section 17 of the Act of 1963 which is para material to the provisions of subsection (4) of section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. This safeguard was considered sufficient in the case of Mst.
Naeema Tabassum and another (supra). The relevant portion reads as under:- "The legislature has duly safeguarded the interest of the tenant while enacting provisions of section 13, subsection (4). In case the landlady fails to occupy the shop within one month of the date of obtaining possession, the tenant may apply to the Controller for an order directing the restoration of possession of the shop to him."
10. The upshot of the above discussion is that there is no merit in this appeal. The same is dismissed with no order as to costs. However, the appellant is allowed time up to the 30th of June, 1994 to hand over vacant possession of the premises to the respondent.