1. This is an appeal under section 24 of Cantonments Rent Restriction Act (XI of 1963) by the tenant from an order of eviction from a residential house passed against her on 30-6-1992, by Additional Rent Controller, Lahore Cantt.
2. A Bungalow No.1483/7 at Tufail Road, Lahore Cantt. was owned by Mst. Amina Begum, respondent.
3. The bungalow comprised two residential portions. One portion was rented out to Nazir Ahmad Shad upon payment of monthly rental of Rs.2,500. The other portion was leased to Ch. Tufail which was stated to be in personal possession of the respondent. On 22-8-1989, respondent applied to Rent Controller, Lahore Cantt. for eviction of Nazir Ahmad Shad from the portion of the bungalow in his possession on grounds of default in payment of rent, since the month of February, 1989, showing rent arrears in the sum of Rs.7,500 and bona fide personal requirement of the portion for her self- use. Upon being served, Nazir Ahmad Shad presented his written statement, wherein he denied averments regarding rent-default and requirement of the house for self-use of the respondent.
4. Tenancy and the rent per month payable for it were not disputed. On 14-2-1990, Rent Controller passed an order for deposit of rent arrears at the rate of Rs.2,5W per month and future rent at the same rate. Accumulated rent-arrears were Rs.20,000. After making the rent-direction, issues were settled in the rent case. These were:-- (1)Whether the present petition is not maintainable? OPR
(2) Whether the respondent is a rent-defaulter, if so, from which period? OPP
(3) Whether disputed premises were required by the petitioner in good faith for her self-use and for the use of her family? OPP
(4) Whether the respondent has illegally parted with possession of the tenanted premises in favour of his brother-in-law, if so, its effect? OPP
(5) Relief.
5. The application for review of rent direction was filed. It was dismissed. On 20-2-1991, respondent appeared as her own witness as P.W.1 and gave evidence about the rent-default and her bona fide requirement of the house for her self-use. Cross-examination of P.W.1 was postponed to a future occasion, because the counsel for the tenant was not in attendance. P.W.1 was extensively cross- examined on 3-10-1991. Thereupon, she closed her oral evidence. Copy of the plan of Bungalow No.1483/7 was put in evidence as Exh.P-1. Nazir Ahmad Shad died during the course of trial of the ejectment case. His legal representatives i.e. widow and son were substituted for him on record.
6. Amended pleadings were filed. Despite adequate time and opportunity, the tenants gave no evidence. Consequently, their defence was closed, on 21-11-1991, and the ejectment case was adjourned for arguments. Parties also gave written arguments. However, before the ejectment case could be finally decided, an application under Order 1, rule 10, C.P.C. was submitted by Mrs. Sughra Agha, Aqeel Asif Ali, Ahsan Raza, Mrs. Farah Aqeel and Mrs. Robina Ahsan for becoming parties to the ejectment-petition. It was asserted that Nazir Ahmad Shad was son-in-law of Mrs. Sughra Agha and the residential portion of the bungalow in question was rented out to the applicants, with his assistance. Therefore, they were necessary parties to the ejectment case as tenants in occupation of the residential house. It was further averred in the application that Nazir Ahmad Shad had not resided in the house even for a single day. On 18-6-1992, the application for impleadment by Mrs. Sughra Agha etc. was dismissed by the Rent Controller. In this state of record, practically there was no evidence to rebut the evidence of respondent No-1 given to prove rent- default and bona fide personal requirement of the house by her. It may be advantageous to notice that P.W.1 in her testimony deposed that Nazir Ahmad Shad and his family had shifted their residence to their own house and had parted with possession of the disputed house in question in favour of his in-laws. Independent of the averments in the application for impleadment filed by the in-laws of Nazir Ahmad Shad, the tenor of cross--examination of P.W.1 clearly showed that legal- representatives of Nazir Ahmad Shad were not residing in the house in question and their case was that Ahsan Raza etc. were in occupation of the house as tenants of respondent. Above suggestions were firmly denied by the respondent who insisted that Nazir Ahmad Shad alone was her tenant and upon his demise, his widow and son stepped into his shoes. On record, of which there is no rebuttal, it was sufficiently proved that Nazir Ahmad Shad and his legal-representatives had abandoned the possession of the house in favour of Ahsan Raza etc. without either express or implied permission of the respondent. They had shifted to their own house constructed by them.
7. Respondent gave clear evidence that the tenanted portion was bona fide required by her for her self-occupation. As said above, there was no rebuttal of it. There was no evidence to show that the respondent owned any other residential building suitable for her needs in the Cantonment area or in its vicinity. Her need for self-occupation was, therefore, well established. Similarly, the finding on rent-default by the appellants was equally unexceptionable. It may not be without interest to observe that alongwith widow and son of Nazir Ahmad Shad, Mrs. Sughra Agha and her sons and daughters had also joined in appeal directed against the eviction order. Upon the objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent, their names were deleted from the array of appellants.
8. Since they were not tenants and also not parties to the ejectment case, they could not come in appeal against the eviction order passed against the legal-representatives of deceased original tenant. Upon this view of the record, there is little force in the appeal. Consequently, it is dismissed with costs. Original records be returned.