2. Brief facts of the case are that Property No.2334 Ward No.9, Muslim Chowk, Bohar Gate, Multan is owned by the present appellants and was rented out to the respondent at the rate of Rs.1,200 per month. The respondent paid the rent up to August 1994 and thereafter, he failed to pay the rent till the filing of the ejectment petition i.e. On 9-7-1995. The said petition was submitted on two grounds, firstly on the ground of default in the payment of rent and secondly on the ground that the shop was required by the appellants for their own personal use.
3. The ejectment petition was contested by the respondent and both the grounds were refuted by him. It was also alleged that an amount of Rs.20,000 had been paid by him as security and at the time of vacation of premises it is returnable to him. It was also asserted that rent up to June, 1995 had been paid to the appellants, whereas from July, 1995 onward the same had been deposited in the Court as the landlord-had refused to receive the payment. As far as the bona fide personal need of the appellants is concerned, it was stated that the shop in dispute was not required for personal use and the only intention of appellants was to get him ejected.
4. The trial Court after recording the evidence and hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the-parties, while deciding Issue No.5 in favour of appellants accepted the application for eviction.
5. While deciding Issue No.5, learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the shop in question was bonafidely required by the appellants for their personal use, therefore, ejectment order was passed against the respondent. The other ground of default was not proved. The respondent filed an appeal against the said order, which was accepted vide impugned judgment, primarily on the ground that son of the appellant No.1 namely Muhammad Aamar/appellant No.2 himself has not appeared in Court as a witness in support of their claim of bona fide personal need. The said judgment has been impugned in the present Second Appeal from Order.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that non-appearance of Muhammad Aamar/appellant No.2 in support of averments made in the ejectment petition was not fatal to their claim. He has relied upon the following reported judgments:----
(a) Muhammad Anwar and Muhammad Ayub v. Muhammad Saeed and others (1991 SCMR 2337). ,
(b) Haji Ghulam Muhammad v. Abdul Qadir (PLD 1975 Lahore 200).
(c) Muhammad Sharif and others v. Abdullah and others (1991 CLC 1381).
(d) Muhammad Bashir v. Vensimal and 4 others (PLD 1980 Karachi 409).
(e) Hassan Khan v. Munnawar Begum (PLD 1976 Kar. 832).
7. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand submits that the appellants have failed to establish bona fide personal requirement of the disputed shop, therefore, the learned Additional District Judge, was justified in accepting the appeal of the respondent.
8. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties at length, gone through the record and the judgments cited above. Primarily, the learned Additional District Judge was persuaded by the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent about non- appearance of appellant No.2 as witness before the Rent Controller to establish his bona fide requirement in good faith. Appellant No. l has appeared and stated on oath that he required shop in dispute in bona fide manner in good faith for personal use of his son Muhammad Aamar having become major, who want to start business in the said shop. His statement on oath itself is sufficient in the light of the judgment referred to above as Hassan Khan v. Munnawar Begum (PLD 1976 Kar.
832). Similarly non-appearance of Muhammad Aamar was not sufficient to discredit the evidence of the appellants led by them before the Rent Controller in support of their plea. The judgment cited above clearly supports the appellants' claim that non-appearance of Muhammad Aamar/appellant No.2 was immaterial. His personal need in bona fide manner has been established by producing evidence and the learned Appellate Court was not justified in disbelieving the said evidence. It is also pertinent to note that respondent has not alleged that the appellants want to increase the rent and for that purpose ejectment petition was moved or they want to rent out the said property to someone else on higher rate. The reply to the ejectment petition submitted by the respondent is to the extent that the landlords/appellants want vacation of the disputed shop. Learned Additional District Judge was also not justified in holding that specifically it was not stated in the ejectment application that the shop was required for Muhammad Aamar in bona fide manner for personal use. It was sufficient to state in the ejectment petition that the shop was required in good faith for personal use in bona fide manner. During evidence, it was stated that the shop in question was required for Muhammad Aamar. Non- mentioning of this fact in the ejectment l application itself could not discredited the evidence of the appellants.
9. The well-reasoned order passed by the learned Rent Controller was illegally reversed on Issue No.5 by the learned Additional District Judge vide I impugned judgment dated 23-5-1996. The appellants have established through reliable evidence on record that the shop in dispute was required for their personal use. There was cogent evidence produced by the appellants to justify the order of eviction against the respondent.
10. For the reasons stated above, the impugned judgment dated 23-5-1996 passed by the Additional District Judge is hereby set aside and the order passed by the Rent Controller dated 12- 2-1996 is restored. The respondent is given two months' time for delivery of the vacant possession of the shop in question to the appellants. This appeal is accordingly accepted with no order as to costs.