1. ' MUKHTAR AHMAD JUNEJO, J.---Petitioner Waheed Munawar has sought leave to appeal against a judgment dated 5-8-1996 by the Lahore High Court dismissing his Writ Petition No,13600 of 1996, wherein orders dated 30-10-1994 and 12-6-1996 passed by the Rent Controller and the appellate authority under Rent Ordinance, respectively, were challenged.
2. ' Admittedly the petitioner is occupying the premises in litigation viz. Bangalow No,1129, Ravi Block, Allama Iqbal Town, Lahore, as tenant of Asad Jan respondent No,3 on 20-11-1989, the respondent No,3 filed an application under section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 (hereinafter mentioned as the Ordinance) for eviction of the petitioner from the bungalow in litigation, on the grounds that the petitioner had defaulted in payment of rent since February 1989, that the respondent required in good faith the premises in litigation for being occupied by him and his family, that the petitioner had committed acts which were likely to impair the value and utility of the bungalow in dispute, that the demised premises were required for reconstruction of the back portion of the bungalow after partial demolition and lastly, that the petitioner was a nuisance for the neighbours.
3. ' The ejectment application was contested by the petitioner, who, in his written statement, raised preliminary objection that he had deposited with the respondent No,3 Rs,10,000 as security and Rs,20,000 for adjustment of periodical non-payment of monthly rents and that the respondent intended to usurp such amount and had filed the ejectment application mala fidely. Denying the allegation of default, the petitioner averred that after termination of the period covered by the written tenancy agreement between the parties dated 22-8-1985, new terms and conditions of tenancy were settled between him and the respondent, to whom he paid another amount of Rs,20,000 as security to cover and deduct any non-payment of monthly rent. The petitioner spoke of private arrangement between him and the respondent, by which the rent was being paid in lump sum after interval of three to six months. The other grounds for eviction were also controverted.
4. ' Under an order dated 30-10-1994, learned Rent Controller accepted the eviction application and directed the petitioner to vacate the premises in litigation within two months. The respondent No,3 was ordered to return Rs,10,000 being the amount of security to the petitioner, and to withdraw the rent that was deposited in Court. Said order survived Appeal No, 139 of 1994 filed before the Additional District Judge, Lahore and the Writ Petition No,13600 of 1995 filed in the High Court, which were dismissed on 12-6-1996 and 5-8-1996, respectively. Hence this petition.
5. ' Mr. Sh. Khalilur Rehman, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in the rent application default in payment of rent was alleged from February, 1989, while A.W. Chiragh Din, attorney of the respondent in his evidence said that the petitioner had not paid rent for August, September and October, 1989 and, as such, there was a contradiction. It was next argued that the learned Additional District Judge committed error by recording evidence in his Court, which was the appellate Court under the Rent Ordinance. It was also argued that the evidence on record was not sufficient for passing of an order of eviction against the tenant.
6. ' No doubt learned Additional District Judge as appellate authority under the Rent Ordinance, examined in his Court one Muhammad Zafar as A.W.1 and respondent No,3 Asad Jan as A.W.2 for this an application was moved by the respondent No,3, under section 15(7) of the Rent Ordinance.
7. This was done to bring on record new developments including the fact that the respondent No,3 had returned to Pakistan, where he had hired the house of A.W.1 Muhammad Zafar on payment of rent of Rs,6,000 per month.
8. ' Evidence of the parties recorded in the trial Court as well as in the appellate Court, appears to have been correctly appraised by the trial Court as well as by the appellate Court. On the point of default in payment of rent, the respondent No,3 examined his attorney Chiragh Din A.W.1 who made no mistake in saying the petitioner had failed to pay rent either for August, 1989 or for September 1989 or for October, 1989. Such assertion was not rebutted by evidence of the petitioner. While appraising the evidence the trial Court expressed itself in the following words:-- "The respondent has presented only one receipt as Exh./A-2 which was regarding November, 1989.
9. R.W.1 in his statement stated that the rent was being paid without receipt since July, 1989 and from August, 1989 the rent was paid against receipts. He has not presented any receipt from August to October, 1989, in his evidence. Photo copy of some receipts purportedly for the months of August, September and October, 1989 have been placed on record, but neither the original receipts have been presented nor exhibited in evidence. The attorney of the petitioner categorically stated that these receipts were forged and he did not sign the same. The original receipts have not been presented on the record and the signature appearing on the photo copy of these receipts were not identical with the signatures of the special attorney of the petitioner which he affixed on the ejectment petition, Wakalatnama and other papers. The signature on these photo copies were quite different to those which was fixed on the other papers by the attorney of the petitioners.
10. Therefore, the presumption goes against the respondent especially in the absence of original receipts that he did not pay the rent from August, September and October, 1989 and the receipts were manipulated."
11. ' Said view was affirmed by the appellate Court in the following words:-- "The appellant produced before the learned trial Court photostat of receipts pertaining to the months of August, 1989 to October, 1989 and did not produce their original ones, therefore, the photostat of receipts could not be read in evidence and the learned Rent Controller has rightly disbelieved the receipts produced by the appellant. The conclusion of the learned Rent Controller that the signatures on these receipts were not the original signatures of the respondent is also based on fact and could not be disbelieved in this appeal. The learned Rent Controller, therefore, has rightly decided issue No, 1 in favour of the respondent."
12. ' Under the impugned judgment the High Court observed as below:-- "In any case, the respondent/landlord having denied the receipt of rent on and from February, 1989, it was the legal duty of the petitioner to have established on the record that he paid the rent for the said period. The evidence on the record on the other hand reveals that the petitioner produced photostat copies of receipts pertaining to the period from August, 1989 to October, 1989 while the original thereof were not produced. These receipts have not been relied by the two Courts below and rightly so because no plausible explanation was forthcoming on the record as to why the originals were not produced."
13. The findings by the Courts below reproduced above are based on evidence, which has not been properly rebutted. Respondent No,3 discharged his initial onus by leading evidence through Chiragh Din that rent for August, 1989, September 1989 and October, 1989 was not paid. After such evidence having come on record, the onus to prove payment of rent for said period shifted on the petitioner who did not lead such evidence which could rebut said evidence. The issue of default in payment of rent, was rightly found in favour of the respondent No, 3.
14. ' On the point of personal requirement, the respondent No,3 examined himself as A.W.2 and examined Muhammad Zafar as A.W.1. Dealing with this point learned Additional District Judge took view as follows:-- "In this case it has been brought on record by the respondent that his family members are residing at Lahore and the property in dispute is required by him in good faith for his personal use and occupation. The apprehension of the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent has been living in Saudi Arabia and has no intention to come back to Pakistan to reside with his family in the property in dispute has further been removed by the respondent by way of adducing additional evidence. The respondent, while appearing before this Court in additional evidence, has deposed that he has come back to Pakistan to settle down permanently with his family and that the property in dispute is required by him in good faith for his personal use and occupation. The respondent further has produced another witness, who is owner of Property No,534, Umar Block, Allama Iqbal Town, Lahore and he has deposed that the ground floor of the property has been let out by the witness to the respondent at Rs,6,000 per month. It is, therefore, proved by the respondent by adducing additional evidence that he presently is residing in a rented house and further he has also denied the contention of the appellant that the respondent owns another house in Lahore."
15. ' The High Court has on this point affirmed findings of the. Courts below, in the words, which follow:- - "As for the plea for personal need, it would be noticed that originally the ejectment application proceeded on the ground that the respondent intended to come back to Pakistan alongwith his family so as to live in the premises in dispute. It so happened that during the pendency of the ejectment application, the respondent did come back to Pakistan and started living in a rented house. This fact alone is sufficient to establish that the bungalow in dispute was bona fide required by the respondent for his own occupation particularly when it has not been proved on the record that the respondent owned any other property suitable for his needs in the same urban area."
16. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to persuade us to disturb the concurrent findings of the Courts below on the points of default in payment of rent and bona fide personal requirement of the premises by the respondent No,3. As such, we decline to grant leave to appeal against the impugned judgment and dismiss this petition. The petitioner is allowed to retain the premises in litigation till 31-3-1997 subject to due payment of rent of the same to the respondent.
17. On 31-3-1997 the keys of the premises in litigation shall be handed over by learned Advocate-on- Record of the petitioner to learned Advocate-on-Record for the respondent No, 3 and in case of default, the proceedings under Contempt of Court Act would be initiated against the petitioner, who would be ejected from the premises in litigation by force and without any notice.