IJAZ-UL-HASSAN, J.---Malik Muhammad Ajbar Khan respondent No,1 herein, filed Rent Application under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, for ejectment of Qazi Muhammad Rehman, petitioner herein, from suit shop situated in Rauf Market Timargara Bazar, Timargara, on the ground of default in payment of rent with effect from January, 1999 and personal bona fide requirement. The application was resisted and it was pleaded that Malik Abdur Rauf, brother, of respondent No,1 was owner of suit shop and the same was obtained by the petitioner on payment of R.1,10,000 as 'Pagri'. During the proceedings an application was moved to the effect that the petitioner has sublet the suit premises in favour of one Matiullah an Afghan refugee and the latter be impleaded as aparty. The application was opposed. It was allowed and Matiullah was impleaded as party. Necessary issues were framed out of the pleadings of the parties and evidence was recorded from both the sides.
2. After taking into consideration the material available before him, learned Senior Civil Judge/Aala Illaqa Qazi, Dir exercising the powers of Rent Controller, by means of his judgment and decree dated 4-5-2002 came to the conclusion that petitioner/tenant on the one hand has committed no default in payment of rent and on the other, if he is found a rent defaulter it cannot be treated intentional; that the factum of sublet has not been satisfactorily proved; that sufficient material has been brought on the file to prove that suit shop is required by respondent-landlord for his personal need and that petitioner-tenant is entitled to recover Rs,1,10,000 from Malik Abdur Rauf through a competent Court of law. Having held, so, the application was allowed and petitioner-tenant was directed to vacate suit shop and hand over its possession to respondent-landlord within 90 days of the order.
3. Aggrieved therefrom an appeal was filed before learned District Judge/Zilla Qazi, Dir which was entrusted to Additional District Judge, Dir for disposal. The learned Appellate Court maintained the eviction order but partially accepted the Appeal through his judgment dated 23-12-2002 subject to payment of Rs,2,10,000 by respondent-landlord to petitioner-tenant.
4. Feeling aggrieved both the parties i,e, petitioner-tenant and respondent-landlord have filed Writ Petitions No,148 of 2003 and 498 of 2003 which shall be disposed of by this common judgment.
5. Mr. Muhammad Aman Khan, Advocate appearing on behalf of Qazi Muhammad Rehman petitioner-tenant attacked the validity and correctness of the impugned judgment and decrees of the forums below on the ground that the evidence on record has not been appreciated in its true perspective and the judgments have been recorded in a mechanical manner without application of judicial mind which cannot be allowed to remain intact. The learned counsel added that no material was available on the record to show that suit shop was required by respondent-landlord in good faith for his personal need and as such there was no legal justification on the part of learned Courts below to arrive to the conclusion that respondent-landlord is in need of suit shop to run his business. Mr.Mazullah Khan Barkandi, Advocate, learned counsel for Malik Muhammad Ajbar petitioner in Writ Petition No,498 of 2003 submitted that the learned Appellate Court had no justifiable reason to impose an amount of Rs,2,10,000 on his client to be paid to the tenant and that the fmding to this effect is without lawful authority and without jurisdiction and be declared as such. He also supported the order of learned Rent Controller dated 4-5-2002 and contended that the same be upheld in the circumstances of the case.
6. We have heard at length the arguments of learned counsel for the parties with reference to the material on file.
7. The ejectment of the tenant from suit shop is sought principally on the ground that he is rent defaulter and that suit shop is required by the landlord bona fidely in good faith for his personal need. The crucial and decisive point in the present litigation is as to whether the landlord has succeeded by leading reliable and sufficient evidence to prove that the disputed shop is required by him in good faith. If this fact stands substantiated on record, the other facts would become a matter of secondary importance. It hardly needs to be emphasised that the burden to prove the bona fides or good faith is clearly on the landlord. In the present case we find that sufficient material has been brought on the record to indicate that the landlord is jobless and he requires the suit shop in good faith for his personal need. There is absolutely nothing in rebuttal. The genuine and bona fide need of the landlord has been established satisfactorily. The statement of the landlord on oath regarding the bona fide requirement is found consistent with the averment of ejectment application and could not be dislodged in cross-examination or disproved or rebutted.
Muhammad Shoaib Alam v. Muhammad Iqbal (2000 SCM R 903) and Iqbal Book Depot v. Khatib Ahmad and 6 others (2001 SCM R 1197). An attempt has been made to show that landlord owns other shops in Rauf Market which are sufficient to meet his requirement and thus the element of bona fide is missing. The argument is without force. A landlord has a complete option to choose from one of the several tenements occupied by tenants to avail of the personal requirement and the discretion is not assailable except in the rarest cases of bad faith, as held in Nooruddin and 9 others v. SAGA Printers (1998 SCM R 2119). A perusal of the impugned judgments reveals that plausible reasons have been given therein in support of the conclusion arrived at. Learned counsel for the tenant has failed to draw our attention to any portion of evidence which was allegedly overlooked or was misread by any of the Courts below. The landlord has been rightly saddled with the responsibility to pay Rs,2,10,000 to the tenant in case of eviction. This direction has been made in view of the statement/willingness of the landlord and we see no justification to upset the same.
8. In view of the above discussion we find that both the writ petitions are devoid of substance. The same are dismissed. No order as to costs.