Muhammad Din and Muhammad Shafique Pehlwan appellants, tenants in Shop No. 195-A/B.1 owned by the respondents, have preferred this second appeal against their ejectment vide order dated 18-7-1991 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sahiwal in appeal setting aside the order dated 19-10-1989 passed by the Rent Controller, Sahiwal, whereby he dismissed the ejectment application fled by the respondents against the appellants.
2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the respondents/landlords sought ejectment of the appellants on the ground that Saif-ud-Din one of the landlords of the shop in question and petitioner in the ejectment petition needed the premises for his personal use. The appellants resisted the application contending that the ejectment petition was filed to increase the rent and there was no bona fide requirement of the shop in question. On the pleadings of the parties, learned Rent Controller framed the following issues:- (1)Whether respondent No.2 is unnecessary party? If so its effect? OPR (2)Whether the application is defective in its present form? If so, its effect? OPR (3)Whether the application is mala fide and the respondents are entitled to special costs? OPR (4)Whether the application has not been competently filed by all the petitioners (except petitioner No.6 Saif-ud-Din)? If so, its effect? OPR (5)Whether the shop in dispute is bona fide required by the petitioners for personal use? OPA (6)Relief.
The parties adduced evidence in support of their respective stands. Haji Allah Bakhsh A.W.1 and Chiragh Din A.W.2 stated that the shop in question was required by Saif-ud-Din A.W.3 for his personal need. The, witness, however, stated that he was also an agriculturist and they were not aware of the specific business, which Saif-ud-Din wanted to do in the shop. Saif-ud-Din, while appearing in the witness-box, stated that he needed the shop to install a press and for sale and purchase of cement. He admitted that agricultural land owned by him was under his self- cultivation.
3. Respondent Muhammad Azam R.W.1 stated that Saif-ud-Din in order to increase the rent had filed the ejectment petition and that the shop in question was not required by him for his personal need. Respondent Muhammad Din R.W.2 stated that Saif-ud-Din landlord demanded Rs.400 per month as rent for the shop and agreed to receive Rs.350. He further stated that Saif-ud-Din is an agriculturist by profession and the shop was not required by him for his personal use and bona fide need The learned Rent Controller holding that the shop was not required by all the owners and Saif-pd-Din not being the sole owner could not seek ejectment of appellants for his personal need and further that he being an agriculturist did not require the shop for his personal bona fide need, dismissed the ejectment application vide order dated 19-10-1989.
4. Being dissatisfied, the respondents preferred an appeal against the order dated 19-10-1979 of- the Rent Controller before the District Judge, Sahiwal, who vide judgment dated 18-7-1991 accepted the appeal and set aside the order of the Rent Controller holding that it was open for Saif-ud-Din respondent to seek ejectment of the appellants from the shop for his personal need as the need of all the landlords is not the requirement for the purpose of filing the ejectment petition. However, if there are more than one landlords, they can be impleaded as petitioners or respondents as the case may be. The findings of the Rent Controller on the issue of personal need was reversed with the reason that solitary statement of the landlord, if ringing true would be sufficient to make basis for eviction order. The statement of the landlord on oath if consistent with the averments made in the application, shall be enough to prove the bona fides unless proved otherwise.
5. The appellants feeling aggrieved of the order of learned Additional District Judge have preferred this second appeal on the ground that bona fide requirement of the shop for personal use has not been satisfactorily proved and that the requirement of one of the landlord is not requirement for the purpose of section 13(3) (a) (1) of W.P. Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. He vehemently contended that admittedly Saif-ud-Din respondent being an agriculturist was personally engaged in cultivation of the land and having no experience of business, has not established need of premises for his bona-fide personal need.
Saif-ud-Din in his statement before the Court specifically disclosed his need of the shop to run the cement business and for the installation of a press. The omission of the respondents not to specify the business in the ejectment application was not a valid ground to non-suit him in absence of his failure to Drove his requirement of the shop in good faith.
The expression "requires in good faith" has been considered by the superior Courts on several occasions and held that not mere wish, but to show an honest desire is the requirement to ascertain good faith. However, the law does not require a landlord to establish his absolute requirement, what is required is, that he is seeking eviction for his own use in good faith, the onus of which is certainly on the landlord but to discharge his onus, the landlord is not required to prove more than his honest need. The Rent Controller has to satisfy that the requirement of the landlord was not actuated by bad faith.
Judging the evidence on record, I find that the Rent Controller had not tried to consider the requirement of landlords in substance. Considering evidence produced by the parties the evidence of the respondents landlords does not suffer from any contradiction as to the personal need it being consistent and credible, satisfactorily proved the issue. The findings of the first appellate Court on the question of fact of personal need without suffering from misreading of evidence or overlooking of material portion of the evidence cannot be interfered and reversed as desired by the appellants. .
The ejectment application on the ground of personal need of Saif-ud---Din one of the co- owners/landlords was not incompetent. It was held by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Khalique Ahmad v. Abdul Ghani etc. (PLD 1973 SC 214) that in case of more than one owner/landlord, it is open to any one of them to file an ejectment petition for his personal need, without joining the remaining landlords/co-owners as petitioners or respondents as the case maybe. However, for the purpose of Section 13 (3) (a) (1) of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 bona fide personal need- must not necessarily be of the entire body of landlords. The requirement of law on the subject is that a landlord may apply to the Rent Controller for an order to put him in possession, if his requirement of a non-residential building is in good faith for his own use. Section 13(3)(a)(1) of ibid and concerns the individual need of a landlord as well as collective need of all the landlords if more than one. If a person is entitled to receive rent as a landlord he undoubtedly can bring ejectment petition on the ground of his bona fide personal need. However, in view of the safeguard to the tenant, provided by virtue of section 13(3)(2) of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 if a landlord does not occupy the premises in dispute after the same are vacated by the tenant, latter can under the law apply for the restoration of his possession and move for the prosecution of the landlord. The contention that the premises were not required by the respondent for his personal use but his target was to increase rent was not a convincing ground to refuse the ejectment. In the present' case, the ejectntent petition was filed on behalf of all the co-owners/landlords for the personal need of Saif-ud-Din respondent, hence the dismissal of ejectment petition by the Rent Controller on the ground that the need shown was of only one landlord was not legal.
I have carefully considered the reasons advanced by the learned Additional District Judge for accepting the ejectment application on the ground of personal need and do not find any infirmity in the order to be interfered.
Having regard to the facts of the case and the law on the subject, I am of the considered opinion that the respondents with no ambiguity have been able to prove the personal requirement of the demised premises in good faith for the personal use and occupation of Saif-ud-Din respondent. I, therefore, dismiss this appeal upholding the order of eviction of the appellants from the premises in dispute passed by the learned Additional District Judge. The shop in dispute is a business premises, in occupation of the appellants, therefore, they are given four months time to vacate the premises to enable them to make alternate arrangement subject to the payment of monthly rent to the landlords and in case of default in payment of monthly rent,. they will be evicted forthwith.
The parties shall bear their own costs.