' This second appeal is against the order of ejectment passed by learned Rent Controller dated 2-1- 1999 and the order dated 18-11-1999, whereby the appeal filed by the appellant has been dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are, that respondent, sought ejectment of the appellant from the shop in question stating that she has purchased the suit shop vide registered sale and thus, the respondent being a tenant under the previous owner has become a tenant under her. The grounds of eviction inter alia was the personal requirement of her son namely Aftab. This application was resisted by the appellant who took up the objection that the transaction of sale in favour of respondent is Benami. Besides, previous owner has already received a sum of Rs,25,000 as security.
Furthermore, the shop in question is not needed by respondent with bona fide for the personal use.
Issues were accordingly framed; parties were put to trial and the learned Rent Controller, came to the conclusion that the appellant has no right to challenge the sale in favour to respondent though by her father. Besides, on the issue to amount of Rs,25,000 it was held that previous owner Faiz Muhammad, did receive this amount. However, no order for the refund was made.
' As regard the key issue, whether respondent requires the property in good faith for her son, on the appreciation of evidence, it was found in favour of the respondent. In appeal, this finding has been re-affirmed by the Appellate Court.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the property was originally owned by Faiz Muhammad, father of the respondent, who vide sale-deed has though transferred this property to the respondent, but such transaction is "Benami" in nature and has been made only with an objective to seek eviction of the appellant. Besides, that respondent's husband is already in occupation of two shops, which have been converted into one. Her son Aftab, is also working/conducting business alongwith his father, thus being in possession of property, suitable for their need, respondent did not require the shop in question for her son.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. As regards the question of "Benami" transaction is concerned, suffice it to say that being tenant, appellant has no right to impugn the sale made by Faiz Muhammad, in favour of the respondent.
Admittedly, after having purchased the property, respondent had served the appellant with a notice under the provisions of section 13(a) of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, in response whereof, appellant started tendering rent to her, through money order. Meaning thereby, that he acknowledged the respondent as landlady of the property. This fact by itself is sufficient for the purpose of maintainability of ejectment proceedings.
' It may be pertinent to state here that even in these proceedings, the appellant has admitted relationship of landlord and tenant, between the parties, thus in the facts and circumstances, it is not available to the appellant to impugn the sale made in favour of the respondent on account of "Benami" or as a colorable transaction in the rent proceedings, a tenant has no right or locus standi to challenge the title of his landlord, or the validity of transaction of transfix in his favour, when himself is not claiming any right, A interest or title in such property, therefore, the findings of the two forums below on issue No,2 qua "Benami" are upheld.
6. As regards the question of personal bona fide need. It may be stated that Aftab, son of the respondent is of such age, who can conduct business and is not in possession of any other property, suitable for his need. Two shops, which have been converted into one, are in possession of his father, where he is conducting his own business and Aftab is only extending a helping hand.
This does not mean that the property is not required by the appellant to establish his son independently, only for the reason that he works with his father, rather this fact by itself is a good reason, that shop in question should be got vacated for his independent business. No misreading or non reading of evidence on the part of the two forums has been shown. Thus there is concurrent finding of fact, which cannot be upset in second appeal, if it does not suffer from any vice mentioned above. Furthermore, neither in the written reply, nor in evidence, the appellant has been able to establish the facts militating against personal bona fide requirement of the respondent's son.
7. Besides, respondent's counsel today has made a categorical statement before this Court, that the respondent's son shall duly occupy the property and in case that is not done, the respondent shall not only surrender the possession of the shop to the appellant, rather shall also pay penalty of Rs,500,000 (five lacs rupees). Furthermore, under the provisions of section 13(a), of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, sufficient protection is available for the tenant, in case the property is not occupied by the landlord, where, it has been got vacated, on the grounds of personal requirement.
' In view of all, what has been stated above, no interference in the impugned orders is called for.
8. As regards Rs,25,000 it is also stated by respondent's counsel that the amount of Rs,25,000, which the appellant has paid to the previous landlord, she will refund at the time of seeking execution of the said premises.
' In the light of above, this appeal has no merits and is hereby dismissed. However, the appellant is granted four months time to vacate the premises in question and before seeking possession of the property, the respondent shall pay an amount of Rs,25,000 to the appellant, which he has deposited as security with Faiz Muhammad, the previous owner and father of the appellant.