SAYED NAJAM-UL-HASSAN KAZMI, J.-This order will dispose of S.A.O. 98/97 and S.A.O. 99/97, as common questions of law and facts are. Arising therein.
2. The respondent (Anjuman Ghulaman-e-Rasool, Jamia Masjid), filed two ejectment petitions, for seeking eviction of the appellant (Muhammad Akbar) from shops Nos. 12 and 7 respectively, on the grounds of default in payment of rent since July, 1994, deterioration in value of shops, on account of having remained Closed for more than 5 years and also on the ground that the shop No. 12 was required for the purpose of store while shop No, 7 was required by the respondent for the purpose of religious library.
3. 'The learned Rent Controller, accepted the ejectment petitions, vide order dated 29.4.1997, as a result of findings recorded against issues Nos. 2 and 3. It was held that the appellant had failed to occupy the rented premises for more than five years, which decreased the value thereof and that the personal need of the respondent, qua the two shops stood established.
4. The appellant challenged the orders of eviction in two appeals which were dismissed by the learned Additional Distils, Judge, by bis order dated 17.7.1997. Resultantly, these two second appeals have been filed to assail the orders passed against the appellant.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant, submitted, that the respondent could not prove any bona fide, hence, eviction on the ground of personal need would be untenable and that some shops were vacated and relet during the pendency of ejectment proceedings, it was also contended that two rooms on the upper floor were lying vacant and that the respondent should open the library inside the Mosque or on upper floor. He also challenged the findings on issue No. 2.
6. Conversely learned counsel for the respondent, submitted, that concurrent findings of fact were recorded by the two Courts and that no mis-reading of the evidence could be pointed out. He further submitted, that no shops were vacated or relet during the ejectment proceedings and that no portion was vacant with the respondent and instead one room inside the Mosque was occupied by the Imam Masjid). He further submitted, that the rent was not directly paid but was being deposited in the bank, hence, no inference of occupation of the shop could be drawn from such deposit.
7. With the assistance of learned counsel for the appellant, the entire evidence was reviewed. The respondent produced AW.l, who deposed that one shop was required for religious library to impart religious education .To the children while the other shop was required for store. He denied the suggestion that there were two rooms on the upper floor or inside the Mosque and explained that there was only one room and one Hujra. AW. 2 also deposed about the personal need of the respondent and proved, that the shop was kept closed for more than five years which deteriorated its value. The appellant produced Muhammad Akram as RW.I and himself appeared as RW.
2. He admitted, that he was asked to vacate the shops but he had refused on the plea that he was in need of the shop.
8. In the other case too, Abdul Ghafoor and Muhammad Ramzan appeared as AW. 1 and AW, 2 while Muhammad Akram and Muhammad Akbar (appellant) appeared as RW. 1 and RW. 2 respectively.
9. The evidence on record clearly proves that the shops in issue are required in good faith, by the respondent for the purposes of religious library and store. In the Mosque, small children get religious education from the Imam Masjid and the objective of the respondent is to establish religious library in one shop where the books will be donated by those who offer prayer in the Mosque. The purpose of vacation is not extraneous but in accordance with the very object of the Mosque which includes educating children and imparting them a religious education. The.
Respond- :t ; fact intends to extend the benefit of providing ellgious libary for the students receiving religious education in the Mosque which purpose, cannot be objected to nor termed as mala fide.
10. As regards the plea of availability of any other vacant room, the appellant could not prove any vacant portion of the Mosque available with the respondent. Even otherwise, it will be more convenient if the shops are occupied for the contemplated purpose, as the same have independent approached and can be used for the desired purposes without disturbing the persons who offer prayer inside the Mosque. The appellant could not prove if any shop was vacated during the eviction proceedings or was re-letted. Instead Sher Muhammad, Office Secretary, was present in the Court who explained that no one shop was ever allowed to be occupied by any new tenant after the eviction proceedings.
11. The learned Additional District Judge as well as the learned Rent Controller, after considering the entire evidence have also concluded, that the bona fide need of the respondent was established beyond doubt. The plea raised in the pleading was consistent with the evidence. No mis-reading or non-reading of evidence could be pointed out.
12. Even the findings on issue No. 2, could not be shown to be suffering from any mis-reading of the record. The arguments, that the deposit of rent shall raise presumption of occupation is without substance. If the appellant is, depositing - the rent in Court, It would not mean, that the physical occupation and user of the property is established. On the contrary, the evidence on record is indicative of the fact that the shops are closed for more than five years which deteriorated the value thereof.
13. In this view of the matter, -the appellant has not been able to make out any ground for interference in the impugned orders.
14. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the appellant submitted, that if a period of one year is allowed, the appellant will not press this appeal. Mr. Sher Muhammad, Office Secretary of the respondent and also Mr. Muhammad Bashir Ahmad Khan, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent have agreed to allow time to the appellant for vacation of the shop subject to the regular payment of the rent during the period of stay.
15. For the reasons above, the two appeals are dismissed on merits as well as being not pressed.
The appellant is allowed a period of one year for vacation of the shops. He will deliver vacant possession of the two shops to the respondent, till 22nd April of 1999 and during this period he will regularly tender or deposit the monthly rent, in favour of the respondent, before 15th of each succeeding calendar month.
16. If the appellant fails to deliver the vacant possession within the stipulated period, the respondent shall be entitled to obtain possession in execution of the ejectment order hereby confirmed.