1. ' MUKHTAR AHMAD JUNEJO, J.--Leave to appeal is sought against a judgment dated 18-4-1996 delivered by the Lahore High Court in S.A.O. No,11 of 1994. - ' Admittedly the petitioner is tenant of the respondents in the premises in litigation bearing No,S-19- R-112 situated at Shahrah-e-Quaid-e-Azam, Lahore, by virtue of a Registered lease deed dated 27- 11-1987. The rate of rent of the premises in litigation measuring 3177 sq. Feet, was Rs,25,416 per month, payable each month in advance by the 5th of each calendar month, as per the said lease- deed.
2. ' On 3-2-1991, respondents filed in Court of a Rent Controller at Lahore Rent Application No,139/2 under section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (hereinafter mentioned as the Ordinance) for eviction of the petitioner from the premises in litigation on the grounds of (i) default in payment of monthly rent and (ii) bona fide personal requirement of the premises in litigation, by the landlord.
3. ' The rent case was contested by the petitioner/tenant who filed reply statement. In the reply statement the maintainability of the rent case was challenged and the grounds taken for ejectment were controverted. A heavy amount of Rs,609,984 was said to have been paid by the tenant to the landlord at the time of execution of the lease agreement. Filing of the rent case was alleged to be motived and to be a device to pressurise the tenant to agree to enhancement of rent.
4. ' After settlement of issues and recording of evidence, the learned Rent Controller under his judgment dated 3-12-1992 rejected the Rent Application on the ground that the respondents had failed to prove the grounds taken by them for ejectment of the petitioner. The respondents challenged said judgment in the District Court under M.C.A. 1 of 1993, which was dismissed by an Additional District .Judge under his judgment dated 12-10-1993. The respondents took the matter to Lahore High Court where S.A.O. No,11 of 1994 was filed challenging the two judgments. Under the impugned judgment dated 18-4-1996 a learned Single Judge of the High Court reversed the judgments of the Courts below and accepted respondents' Rent Application, and ordered eviction of the petitioner from the premises in dispute after a period of four months. Hence this petition.
5. ' Mr. K.M.A. Samdani, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the learned High Court had no authority to interfere with the concurrent factual findings given by the two Courts below, as it could interfere only to correct a mistaken view if taken by any of the Courts below. In respect of the ground of default, the learned counsel was of the view that the default should be intentional and that if an Ordinance brought increase in rate of rent, mere non-payment of increased rent without anything else would not make the tenant defaulter in payment of rent, within the meaning of section 13(2)(i) of the Ordinance. In respect of the other grounds, learned counsel argued that no case has been established ,if the premises in litigation were required bona fidely for personal use.
6. ' Mr. A.R. Shaikh, learned counsel for the respondents defended the order of the High Court and was of the iew that both the grounds for eviction of the petitioner were established but the Rent Controller and the first appellate authority had misappreciated the evidenc Learned Judge in Chamber while holding that the petitioner had become defaulter in payment of rent, went on to observe as follows:-- "By virtue of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 (Amendment) Ordinance 13 of 1990 which was promulgated on 6-61990, rent stood automatically enhanced with effect from 1-7-1989 by 20%. The Ordinance further provided for period of 60 days for payment of the arrears which fell due on account of promulgation of the Ordinance. Admittedly the respondent failed to discharge this liability within the prescribed period. The first effort to make payment on the enhanced rate was made by the respondent vide Exh.A-4 when an application for permission to deposit the rent on that rate was made by the respondent. By that time, respondent has already become defaulter."
7. It is difficult to agree with learned Judge in Chamber that because the rent was enhanced to the extent of 20% with effect from 1-7-1989 by an Ordinance, hence mere non-payment of rent according to enhanced rate, without anything else on the record, would result in penalizing the tenant. The word "default" denotes something more than mere non-payment of rent. It has not come on record if the respondents in consequence of statutory increase in rate of rent by 20% sent any notice of such increase to the petitioner. In the circumstances, we are unable to agree with the observation made in the impugned judgment that the petitioner had become defaulter in payment of rent.
8. ' In respect of the ground about requirement of the premises in good faith by the landlords, learned Judge in Chamber, has observed in the impugned judgment as below: "More importantly, however, the respondent is liable to be ejected on the ground of personal need.
9. It stands established by the statement of landlord who appeared as R.W.3 that he has been evicted from the shop where he was carrying on his business as a tenant. This fact is supported by the copy of the judgment dated 14-5-1989, Exh.A-6. It is not the case of the respondent that the appellant No,1 was in possession of any shop for running his business. The need to carry on his business in the premises in dispute cannot, therefore, be said to be unfounded. A.W.1 Tahir Kamal, an owner of the garment factory, has stated that appellant No,1 has made arrangements with him for procuring the garments which he intended to sell in the premises in question."
10. ' In respect of the aforesaid observations, Mr.Samdani, learned counsel for the petitioner was questioned if he controverted version of Naseem-ud-Din A. W.3 that two years prior he was doing business in a rented shop at Beadon Road, but 'he had to leave the same because his landlord wanted to use the same for personal use Naseem-ud-Din also stated that for the preceding two years he was not doing any work and that he required the premises in litigation for personal use.
11. On this point the evidence of the respondents does not appear to have been rebutted. Learned counsel for the petitioner was reticent about the aforementioned evidence of Naseem-ud-Din A.W.3.
12. It is a settled position of law that assertion of a landlord on oath as to requirement of the premises for his personal use, has to be accepted as bona fide if consistent with his averment in his application for ejectment and not shaken in his cross-examination and not disproved in rebuttal. In the case of Qamruddin v. Hakim Mahmood Khan 1988 SCM R 819 solitary statement of a landlord that he wanted to run a general store in the disputed shop to earn his livelihood and that he wanted to engage in his business one of his two grown up sons, had not been challenged in cross- examination and had not been rebutted by evidence produced by the tenant and on that basis an order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller but not maintained by the first appellate Court as well as by the High Court, was restored. In the case of Sonomal and another v. Muhammad Suleman 1989 SCM R 207 this Court declined to interfere with judgment of High Court of Sindh reversing dismissal of a rent application by the Rent Controller and allowing ejectment of tenant, on the ground that one of the sons of the landlord was jobless and he intended to do business with his father in the shop sought to be vacated by the tenant. In the case of Saira Bai v. Anisur Rahman 1989 SCM R 1366 it was held that in a case falling under clause (vii) of subsection (2) of section 15 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, the landlord has to state those facts which prima facie show that the requirement is according to law and is made in good faith.
13. The evidence in the instant case is to be appreciated on the touchstone of the authorities mentioned above. Respondents examined in their evidence Shaikh Naseem-ud-Din A.W.3 (respondent No,1), Tahir Kamal A.W.1 (brother-in-law of A.W.3) and Moinuddin A.W.2 (respondent No,2). Evidence of A.W.3 on the point of bona fide personal requirement was not inconsistent with the averments in the Rent Application and it was not shaken in cross-examination or disproved in rebuttal. Hence such assertion of claim made on oath deserves to be accepted as bona fide, as per the view taken in the cases discussed in the earlier para. ' We are, therefore, inclined to agree with learned Single Judge that the respondents had been able to prove that they required the premises in litigation for their bona fide personal use. Consequently, leave to appeal is declined and this petition stands dismissed.
14. Mr. Samdani, learned counsel for the petitioners requested that the petitioners be allowed to retain the premises for at least one year, because they have been running the business in the disputed premises since the late seventies. Learned counsel further stated on instructions that the petitioners were prepared to pay enhanced rent of Rs,70,000 per month, if the premises were allowed to be retained for one year. This offer was accepted by the learned counsel for the respondents. It is, therefore, ordered that the petitioners shall retain the possession of the disputed premises subject to payment of rent at the rate of Rs,70,000 (rupees seventy thousand only) per month till 31-12-1997. The petitioners shall surrender possession of the disputed premises to the respondents on 31-12-1997, or else the petitioners shall be evicted- from the disputed premises by force without prior notice.