' This order will dispose of S.A.O. No,246 of 1999.
2. Facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that the respondent filed an ejectment petition under section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 for eviction of the appellant on the grounds of personal use and default. Ejectment petition was resisted on the ground that the property was joint and that the respondent had no right to seek ejectment unless property is partitioned. It was also alleged that the respondent had no personal need and there was no default as no notice was served seeking enhancement of the rent.
3. In so far as issue of default was concerned, the same was decided against the respondent but ejectment was allowed on the ground of personal use. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that there was no, vidence for granting the ejectment on the ground of personal use and that the learned Courts below have overlooked the evidence on record which would show that the ejectment was mala fide.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, it is observed that there is no merit in this appeal.
5. For seeking ejectment, the landlord has to appear and make statement as to his personal need and if his statement is not contradicted or shaken in cross-examination, then the question for personal use has to be read in context with section 13(4) of the Ordinanc: , which provides adequate check against mala fide eviction. Respondent did appear in the witness-box and deposed that property was required by her for personal use. Her statement having not been shaken in cross-examination, the same has to be given paramount importance. The appellant having failed to produce any evidence worthy of credence, learned Court below rightly concluded that the plea of personal use was established beyond doubt. Even otherwise, statement of landlord has to be given primary consideration. Reference can be made to the rule given in Messrs F.K. Irani & Co. v. Begum Feroze 1996. SCMR 1178 and Juma Sher v. Sabz Ali 1997 SCM R 1062.
6. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the appellant submits that if a period of 10 months is allowed, his client will hand over the possession, voluntarily. Learned counsel for the respondent, who was present with watching brief, submits that he will have no objection, if a period of 10 months is allowed to the rented premises. He, however, submitted that adequate protective measures should be taken, so that possession of the rented premises shall be delivered in time, as the respondent had already suffered on account of delaying tactics of the appellant.
7. In this view of the matter, appeal is dismissed on merit and having not been pressed. Appellant is, however, allowed a period of 10 months to deliver vacant possession of the rented premises.
Appellant shall hand over vacant possession of the premises on or before 18-8-2000. During this period, appellant shall regularly pay monthly rent to respondent, on or before 15th of each succeeding calendar month. In case of default of two months, appellant will become liable to forthwith eviction.
8. In case possession is not delivered by the appellant on or before the stipulated date, respondent will be entitled to execute the order of ejectment hereby confirmed and in such eventuality, appellant will be exposing himself to the proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act.