' In the following five Rent Appeals, Mst. Najma Parveen, appellant in First Appeal from Order No,48 of 1997, First Appeal from Order No,49 of 1997 and First Appeal from Order No,52 of 1997, Muhammad Farid Khattak, appellant in First Appeal from Order No,51 of 1997 and Itbar Gul, appellant in First Appeal from Order No,53 of 1997 are aggrieved of the ejectment orders passed against them by the learned Additional Controller of Rents, Peshawar Cantonment on 16-7-1997 with regard to the suit shops situated in Khyber Medical Center, Peshawar, in favour of the respective landlords/respondents. As the questions for determination in all these appeals are one and the same, therefore, all the 5 appeals are being disposed off through this single judgment in First Appeal from Order No,48 1997.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Hakimullah, respondent in F.A.O. No,48 of 1997, Muhammad Shafique, respondent in First Appeal from Order No,49 of 1997, Towakal Khan, respondent in First Appeal from Order No,51 of 1997, Hamidullah, respondent in First Appeal from Order No,52 of 1997 and Sher Muhammad, respondent in First Appeal from Order No,53 of 1997 are owners of shops Nos.52, 39, 38, 53 36 respectively, constructed on Plot No,444/16 in Khyber Medical Center, Peshawar. The landlords/respondents filed eviction petitions before the learned Additional Controller of Rents, Peshawar Cantonment, for the ejectment of the appellants from the suit shops on the grounds of personal need. According to Para.2 of the eviction application, the shops in question were required by them .In good faith and bonafidely for their own use and occupation;' that the said shops were adjacent to each other and it form a compact block! That the petitioners/ landlords wanted to, start their joint business in partnership in the said compact block and, therefore. Required the shops in good faith and bonafidely for their own use and occupation and are prepared to furnish any type of bond to the satisfaction of the Court and the tenants/appellants that after taking over possession they would not let it out to anybody else and would bring it to their own use. The tenants/appellants contested the petitions by filing their written statements. The learned Controller of Rent framed 7 issues in the case and after recording evidence of both the sides, accepted the applications and ordered ejectment of the tenants/ appellants from the suit shops on 12-5-1993. The appellants/tenants challenged the orders of the learned Controller of Rents before this Court in Appeals bearing Nos.26 of 1993, 31 of 1993, 37 of 1993, 39 of 1993, 40 of 1993 and 41 of 1993. This Court vide a common judgment in First Appeal from Order No,26 of 1993 accepted the appeals, set aside the orders of the learned Controller of Rents for allowing the parties to lead further evidence in support of their respective contentions and thereafter to decide the cases in accordance with law. The landlords/respondents took the matter to the Honourable Suorerne Court of Pakistan and the august Supreme Court of Pakistan vide its judgment, dated 13 -12 -1994 while maintaining the judgment of this Court disposed of the petitions in the following manner:-- "After going through the impugned judgment, we are of the view that although no interference is called for with the order of the remand made by the learned Judge but the above quoted observations, as rightly pointed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, are so specific and clear that they hardly left any scope for decision in these cases by the Rent Controller. We accordingly while disposing of these petitions clarify that the learned Controller of Rents while deciding the cases in accordance with the order of remand will neither take into consideration the observations made by the learned Judge in Chambers in paragraph 9 of the impugned judgment nor he will be influenced by any other comments made by the learned Judge in Chambers on the merits of the case while deciding these cases on the basis of the material produced before him or which may be produced now by the parties in pursuance of the remand order."
' After remand, the landlords/respondents moved applications before the learned Controller of Rents for amendment in para. 2 of their petitions as under:- "That the shop in question is required by the petitioner in good faith and bonafidely for- his own use and occupation. Petitioner intends to start his own independent business in the said shop and is prepared to furnish , any type of guarantee/security with regard to his bona fide personal need for the satisfaction of this Honourable Court and the respondent."
' The reason for such amendment was disclosed to be the lapse of sufficient long time in the disposal of the case due to which the petitioners have abandoned the idea of joint business in partnership and have now made up their minds to establish their independent business in the disputed shops after taking over its possession. The tenants/appellants submitted replies to the applications for amendment and the learned Controller of Rents on 22-1-1996 while accepting the said applications allowed the requisite amendments in para.2 of the eviction petitions. The tenants/appellants accordingly filed amended written statements where after the parties besides adopting the already recorded evidence in the case also recorded statements of landlords/respondents and Sher Muhammad (P.W.2) as witness of the landlords/respondents whereas from the side of tenants/appellants Bismillah Khan and Muhammad Farid Khattak were examined as R.Ws.1 and 2 respectively. The learned Controller of Rents after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, vide impugned orders/ judgments, dated 16-7-1997 ordered eviction of the tenants/appellants from the suit shops. Hence the present appeals.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, and have also perused the record of the case.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants argued that the orders, dated 22-1- 1996 of the learned Controller of Rents whereby the respondents were allowed to amend the petitions are illegal and void for the reason that through such amendment the entire nature of the case has been changed which has caused prejudice to the case of the appellants; that the disputed shops and all other shops situated in the said building are either of chemists or being used for medical business, whereas the landlords/respondents are illiterate persons having no experience in medical profession/ business and, therefore, they cannot run the shops for medical purposes, which shows their mala fide intention and, as such, they are not required the disputed - shops in good faith; that the so-called owners of the disputed shops are Benami' owners and the actual owners of the shops are some other persons, who want to give the disputed shops on rent to other persons on higher rent.
5. From the perusal of the record it is evident that Hakimullah, respondent in First Appeal from Order No,48 of 1997 in his earlier statement recorded in the Court before remand had stated that he required the suit shop in good faith and if the owners of the 7 other adjacent shops for any unavoidable reasons were not in a position to establish their joint business, then he would establish his own independent business in the suit shop as he conducts transport business in which he often remains away from his home. In his statement recorded in the Court after the remand of the case he has stated that due to the prolong litigation between the parties. Which consumed sufficient time he has now given up the idea of joint business and would do his own independent business in his shop as he is now-a-days jobless. He in his both statements has also given assurance that he is ready to furnish any kind of security to the satisfaction of the Court and the appellants that he would use the disputed shop for his own personal use.
' Similarly, Muhammad Shafique, respondent, in First Appeal from Order vo,49 of 1997 has stated that he -was a driver at Karachi and due to tense situation there he left his job and now wants to establish his own business in the disputed shop.
' Tawakkal Khan, respondent in First Appeal from Order No,51 of 1997 has almost given the same statement by stating that he is jobless as he has left the profession of driving and now intends to do his own independent business in the disputed shop.
' Hamidullah, respondent in First Appeal from Order No,52 of 1997 has also stated in his statement that he was conducting the business of transport at Karachi but due to worse situation at Karachi he has left his business there and he having no other source of income now wants to do some business in the disputed shop.
' Sher Muhammad, respondent, in First Appeal from Order No,53 of 1997 has stated that he is jobless having no other property in Cantonment Area and wants to run the disputed shop independently for his own personal need.
' As against this, the appellants in their evidence have laid stress on the points that the respondents are not actual owners of the disputed shops, they are un experienced and not suitable to run proper business in the disputed, shops and, therefore, their demand for eviction of the appellants is not based on good faith and, bona fide requirement.
' The abovementioned deposition of the landlords/respondents show that both in the original petition and in the proposed amendment it is the personal need of the respondents which has been pressed upon for vacation of the shops. The argument of the learned counsel for the appeal ants that through such amendment the entire nature of the case has been changed '3, thus.
Without any force. 'The requisite amendment in no way could be termed to have been bared on a different cause from the one taken by the respondents in the original petitions. In the earlier round, the stand of the respondents was that they intend to establish a clinical laboratory jointly in the disputed shops and if it is not possible then they would establish their' independent business in the disputed shops. In the second round the respondents have only restricted their requirement to their independent business in the disputed shops by saying that due to the lapse of sufficient time they have abandoned the idea of joint business in the shops in question and would do business in the shops in individual capacity. Earlier too, the cause of action was based on personal need and similar is the position now. The amendment in question is quite compatible with the cause having a direct connection with it and in no way alter the nature of the suit in substance. Being so, it was within the competence of the learned Controller of Rents to allow amendment in para. 2 of the petition and there are a number of authorities of the superior Courts wherein the dictum laid down by the Honourable Judges is that grant or refusal of amendment in eviction petition lies in discretion of the Rent Controller even if the provisions of Civil Procedure Code are not applicable in terms to the proceedings under Rent Restriction Ordinance. Hence no prejudice has been caused to the appellants by way of said amendment as before amendment the cause was personal need of the respondents and after amendment the cause is the same. There is, thus, no change in the nature of the suit.
6. Similarly, the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants that the landlords/respondents are illiterate having no experience in medical profession/business is also devoid of any force. A landlord is not required to disclose the nature of business nor A it is the requirement of law that a landlord should be expert in a particular business. This question has been elaborately dealt with in the case of Mst. Saira Bai v. Syed Anisur Rehman 1989 SCM R 1366 wherein the Honourable Judges of the Supreme Court of Pakistan have held as under:-- "Section 15---Bona fide personal requirement for use of property---Landlord has to state in his application, the material facts i,e, facts which constituted cause of action along with those facts which prima facie showed that requirement was according to law and was made in good faith.
Landlord was not required to state the nature of business which he intended to carry on as same was neither essential nor formed part of cause of action."
' In this view of the matter, the objection of the Plants that the disputed shops are not Attired by the respondents in good faith falls to the ground as the appellants have failed to shaken the statement of the respondents through any cogent evidence and even otherwise the respondents cannot be denied the relief prayed for merely on the ground that after acquiring the disputed shops now they would satisfy their personal need because personal need is quite anticipatory in nature.
7. Coming to the objection of the learned counsel for the appellants with regard to the ownership of the landlords over the disputed shops, it may be stated that the question of Benami. Ownership of the respondents over the suit shops is of no help to the appellants; firstly that they have never challenged the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties as the respondents used to pay rent to the respondents after obtaining proper receipts from them without any objection; and secondly the appellants being outsiders have no locus standi to plead the cause of ownership for others and dispute the ownership of the respondents and if some unreliable evidence has been brought on record by the appellants in this respect, it would hardly lead a prudent mind to the conclusion that the respondents are ' Benami' owners of the disputed shops. The apprehension of the appellants that after obtaining possession of the disputed shops, the respondents would let it out on rent to other persons is a premature thought at this stage. If the respondents act in such a way then the appellants are having the remedy of approaching to the proper forum for initiating proceedings against the respondents on this score under the law.
8. In my view, the learned Controller of Rents has properly appreciated the evidence on record and the conclusion of the learned Controller of Rents that the disputed shops are required to the respondent/landlords in good faith for their personal use, his such findings do not suffer from any patent illegality, as the same are based on well-established principles of law. Sufficient material is available on record to hold the respondents entitled to the relief prayed for.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned orders of the learned Controller of Rents, Peshawar Cantonment require no interference which are upheld and the appeals in hand are hereby dismissed with no orders as to costs. The tenants/appellants are directed to hand over the vacant possession of the disputed shops to the respondents/ landlords within a period of three months from today ..