This appeal is directed against order, dated 15-1-2002 passed by Rent Controller, Multan Cantt.
Whereby he accepted rent petition of the respondent.
2. Mst. Irshad Begum widow of Muhammad .Hafeez owner and landlord of House No.75/53, Ward No.7, Allama Iqbal Town (Lal Kurti), Multan Cantt. Filed a petition for eviction of the petitioner (tenant) from the said house on the grounds of wilful default in payment of rent and her bona fide personal need as she was presently residing in Toba Tek Singh and wanted to shift to Multan.
3. The appellant admitted that he was tenant of Mst. Irshad Begum but declined that he had defaulted in the payment of rent and asserted that the premises was not required by Mst. Irshad Begum in good faith for her personal need as she intended. To sell it out after evicting him. It was also alleged that son of the petitioner who is studying in Multan is staying in the hostel of the University. The following issues were framed by the learned Rent Controller:-- ISSUES: (1)Whether the respondent has been paying/tendering rent regularly to the petitioner?
(2)Whether the petitioner requires the property in good faith, bona fide, for her personal use?
(3)Relief.
After recording evidence on the said issues, the learned Rent Controller decided Issue No. 1, in favour of the respondent while Issue No.2, was in favour of the petitioner; resultantly the rent petition was accepted vide order, dated 15-1-2002.
4. Aggrieved thereby tenant preferred this appeal.
5. The appeal is strongly opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent. Arguments heard.
Record also perused.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned order on the ground that evidence was not correctly appraised by the Rent Controller as bona fide requirement of the petitioner was not proved and it was rather established on record that the petition was mala fide. In support of the said argument the learned counsel for the appellant had drawn my attention to page No.2, of the impugned order where, while discussing Issue No.2 the Rent Controller had observed that, "the petitioner further stated that she is living in Toba Tek Singh in the house of her brothers and that due to increase in the members of the family of her brothers, their wives were pressing her to vacate the house". It was urged that the said observation of the Rent Controller is against record.
7. It was next submitted that the Rent Controller had believed the statement of the landlady that the house in which she was presently living in Toba Tek Singh was joint property as it was owned by her father when it was proved on record that she is owner of independent house in Toba Tek Singh having more accommodation than the premises in question.
8. It was further contended that the Rent Controller did not take notice of the statement of landlady where she said that her son was studying in the University since the last four years and his course was also of four years duration. According to the learned counsel the said statement nullified the contention of the landlady because the course was about to get over and apart from that the said son of the landlady was also not produced in the witness-box in support of that contention. In that context the learned counsel had also drawn my attention to the statement of A.W.2, Shamshad Ahmad who said that the premises was required by the landlady because her son was studying at Multan and was residing in hostel.
9. It was finally contended that from the testimony of R.W.1, Mushtaq Ahmad, it was amply proved that on 18-2-1998, an agreement to sell was executed by the landlady in favour of Mst. Saeeda Parveen to sell the premises in question but the learned Rent Controller failed to take notice of the aforesaid evidence wherefrom it was established that the rent petition was mala fide and the premises was not required at all by the landlady in good faith for her personal-- requirement.
10. The main thrust of the appellant's version was that the alleged personal requirement of landlady was not bona fide as she wanted to sell the house after getting it vacated and she had also executed an agreement to sell in that regard with one Mst. Saeeda Perveen. In order to prove that version R. W .1, Mushtaq Ahmad stamp vendor was produced who stated that on 18-2-1998 he had sold stamp paper of the value of Rs.50 in the name of Mst. Irshaa Begum (landlady) and the said sale is enters at Serial No. 4091 of his register of stamp vending. He further went on to say that on that stamp paper sale agreement was scribes by him in respect of a house belonging to Mst.
Irshad Begum situated in Lal Kurti. Multan. He, however, admitted that regarding the aforesaid agreement to sell, Mst. Irshad Begum did not ever come to him and he did not enter that sale agreement in his register. He further admitted that his register of stamp vending was not bound every page of it was separate, it did not contain signature or I.D. Card number of Mst. Irshad Begum and that Entry No. 4091 regarding sale of stamp paper also does not contain the number of the house regarding which agreement to sell was made. He admitted that he does not personally know Mst. Saeeda Parveen neither it is in his knowledge where she lives.
11. He was the only witness of sale agreement and from his statement it was obvious that any of the parties to the alleged sale agreement did not appear before him. In spite of claiming himself as petition-writer he did not enter that sale agreement in the register and the alleged sale agreement was also not produced in evidence.
12. Only an entry in the register of stamp vending was produced showing that a stamp paper worth Rs.50 was sold by the witness but even on that register neither signature of the landlady nor her I.D.
Card number was mentioned. The said solitary statement which did not prove anything was not supported or corroborated by any other independent evidence.
13. On the other hand the landlady has specifically alleged in para. No. 8 of the petition that she wants to shift from Toba Tek Singh in her own house at Multan where she intends to reside with her children and that she has no other residential house at Multan. While appearing as A.W.1, she explained that about 23 years ago she was living in this house with her husband and children and on his death she shifted to Toba Tek Singh in her father's house as the children were minors at that time and now she intends to shift to Multan in her own house and the same is required by her for her own personal need. She also said that one of her son was studying in Multan in the University and it was also required for him but she stated in clear words that the house was required by her for her personal requirement as she wanted to reside therein.
14. Appellant admitted during cross --examination that on the death of the respondent's-husband she shifted from Multan to Toba Tek Singh, at that time her children were minors and now they have grown up. From the testimony of Mst. Irshad Begum (respondent) it was obvious that the premises was required by her in good faith for her personal need and contentions of the appellant's counsel that the learned Rent I Controller incorrectly observed' that wives or the brothers of the landlady were pressing her to vacate the house at Toba Tek Singh or that Rent Controller .Had erred in believing that the house in which landlady was living at Toba Tek Singh was joint property when it actually belonged to her, are of no significance because even if it be assumea that the landlady owns an independent house at Toba Tek Singh which has got more accommodation, even then the law does not give either to the tenant or to the Rent Controller the power to determine where the landlady should personally reside. Landlady as her own witness was the best witness to make out the case of bona fide personal need. As it was proved that the landlady wanted to live in that house with her children who had now grown up, it was immaterial if the course of one of her sons who was studying in the University at Multan was about to get over or was over because the house was not exclusively, required for that son for purpose of studying ax Multan.
15. For the reasons stated above, I see no reason to disagree with the finding given by the learned Rent Controller.
16. During the pendency of this appeal an application for seeking permission to produce additional evidence was moved by the appellant stating that the following documents were not available at the time or evidence before the Rent Controller and would dispose of the controversy between the parties. The documents sought to be produced were:
(1) Copy of licence of stamp vending.
(2) Certified copy of Form PTI which reflects that respondent owns a house in Toba Tek Singh.
(3) Affidavit executed by Musthaq Ahmad which discloses regarding an agreement to sell in favour of Mst. Saeeda Parveen.
(4) Copy of hostel releaving application of Abid Javed son of Mst. Irshaal Begum.
17. The Civil Miscellaneous was opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent. After going through the evidence already recorded and after hearing the arguments from the learned counsel for both the sides I am of the considered view that the aforesaid documents are neither essential nor necessary for enabling this Court for pronouncing judgment. Civil Miscellaneous is accordingly dismissed.
18. The impugned order passed by the learned Rent Controller is upheld and the appeal is hereby dismissed with costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.