MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.- This petition is directed against the judgment dated 23.7.2001 of the Lahore High Court through which appeal filed by the petitioners against the orders of the learned Additional District Judge and Rent Controller in ejectment petition has been dismissed.
2. The petitioners are admittedly in occupation of the property in dispute as tenants of the respondent dents. The respondents filed eviction petition against the petitioners to seek their ejectment on the ground of personal need, damage to the property, sub-letting of the shop and default in the payment of rent. The Rent Controller through order dated 14.1.1996 accepted the said application and directed the petitioners to vacate the premises and had over its vacant possession to the respondents by holding that the respondents had succeeded in establishing that they needed the shop for bona fide personal need in good faith for the business of respondents Nos. 1, 10 and 12 and default in the payment of rent was also held to have been established. The other to grounds were held to have not been proved, therefore, issues regarding thereto were decided in favour of the present petitioners. The appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge through judgment dated 15.12.1998. He, however, held that default in the payment of rent had also not been established and he maintained the eviction order tin the ground of bona fide personal need of the respondents in good faith. During the pendency of this appeal, the petitioners made an application for allowing them to produce in additional evidence to witnesses namely, Sheikh Ali and Sheikh Muhammad Anwar on the ground that at relevant stage when their evidence was being recorded, the said witnesses were not available. This application was rejected by the learned Additional District Judge. The second appeal filed by the petitioners has been dismissed through the impugned judgment dated 23.7.2001 by the learned Judge in Chamber of the Lahore High Court against which lave is sought.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in view of Note-B of judgment reported as Zarwali Shah versus Yousaf Ali Shah, etc. (1992 SCJ 665), a lenient view was to be taken in view of the law declared by this Court for permission to produce additional evidence based on Islamic Principles and the contention of the petitioners that they should have been allowed to produce the said to witnesses to dig out the truth and to do complete justice according to Islam has neither been dealt with nor disposed of by the learned Judge in Chamber whereas only in a cursory manner, the argument raised in that behalf was brushed aside by saying that the said judgment did not help the petitioners.
4. We have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners in the light 6f the principles based on Injunctions of Islam as regard production of evidence in. a case and find that the application moved by the petitioners did not satisfy the said principles in order to get favourable response from the Court. According to Islamic Principles, a party to a case is required to state its case in clear terms and was also required not to hide or conceal anything or, distort the fact and state every fact clearly without there being any mixture of falsehood. The witnesses should also give evidence uninfluenced by their on personal bias in favour or against a party. Now keeping in view these principles, if we see the application of the petitioners does not satisfy the requirements. During the pendency of the ejectment petition, these witnesses were not produced.
The appeal was filed before the first appellate Court in 1996 and the said application was moved giving name of the said to witnesses to . The produced as witnesses in the case in the year 1998. It was also not disclosed in the application as to in respect of which issues or disputed facts, they were to give evidence and as to how their evidence was necessary or relevant for coming to the right conclusion in the case and to do complete justice. It was not disclosed as to why they were not produced earlier and merely stating that they were not available at that time was not sufficient, therefore, the learned Additional District Judge was also justified in law to reject the said prayer and the learned Judge of the High Court was justified in not giving much consideration to the said application, therefore, in our view, the rejection of the said application does not suffer from any legal infirmity either on the touch stone of the law declared by the superior Courts while interpreting Order XLI Rule 27 CPC or in the light of the principles of Injunctions of Islam.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners then contended that the property in dispute was originally owned by the to persons namely Muhammad Sharif and Muhammad Din who died' and the present petition was filed by all the heirs except to daughters of Muhammad Din who were left out and an objection was raised that the petition was bad for nonjoinder of the said to daughters as necessary party. We are afraid, the contention is contrary to the law declared by this Court that in ejectment petition, all the landlords are not necessarily to be joined whereas in a regular suit of possession, all the owners of the property were to be joined as party and if some of them did not want to join the plaintiffs, they were to be impleaded as defendants, for the question of title of property qua a third person in Occupation from whom the possession was being sought could not be determined in the absence of any of the joint owners of the property, therefore, the argument has no force. Even otherwise it is in the evidence that the to daughters of Muhammad Din had surrendered their rights in favour of their brothers and their brothers were admittedly party in the ejectment petition. If the said to daughters would feel aggrieved of their rights in the property, it is open to them to seek remedy in accordance with law and the petitioners could not object to the maintainability of the ejectment petition on the ground of their non-joinder as it was a case merely of not joining a co-landlord which was not fatal according to the settled law to the maintainability of the ejectment petition.
6. The bona fide need in good faith to occupy the property by respondents Nos. 1, 10 and 12 has been fully established by evidence and the matter is concluded by findings of facts of all the Courts below. Learned counsel has not been able to satisfy us that those findings are based either on misreading, misconstruction or non-reading of any material piece of evidence.
7. For the foregoing reason, we find no merits in this petition which is accordingly dismissed and leave refused the petitioners are, however, allowed three months time to vacate the premises from today provided they clear the arrears of rent and also pay rent for these months regularly.