' Faiz Muhammad Khan, respondent herein, brought application under section 13 of the N.-W.F.P.
Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 for eviction of Bakht Zamin Shah, appellant herein, from the shop in dispute situated in Main Bazar, Batkhela, on the grounds of reconstruction, personal use and default in the payment of rent. The application was resisted and out of the pleadings of the parties the learned Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Malakand at Batkhela, formulated as many as eight issues.
2. Upon consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties at the trial and after hearing arguments from both sides, the learned trial Judge discussed Issues Nos.1, 2, 4 and 7 jointly and found the same in favour of the respondent holding that the suit shop was required by the respondent in good faith for his personal use. Regarding Issues Nos.3 and 6 it was pointed out that the appellant had been regularly paying the rent and no default was made by him. Adverting to Issue No,5 it was held that no satisfactory evidence has been produced by the appellant to prove that improvements were effected by him with permission and consent of the respondent and thus the appellant was entitled for recovery of costs of improvements. Having held that the suit shop was required by the respondent in good faith for his, personal need, the application was accepted by order dated 17-4-2000 with direction to the appellant to vacate the premises and hand over possession of the same to the respondent within four months. An appeal was preferred by the appellant which was dismissed through an order dated 13-9-2000 by the learned District Judge/Zila Qazi, Malakand at Batkhela.
3. The appellant, feeling aggrieved, has filed the instant second appeal to assail the orders dated 13-9-2000 and 17-4-2000 respectively passed by the learned District Judge and the learned Rent Controller, Malakand at Batkhela.
4. Haji Muhammad Zahir Shah, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the appellant and while confining his arguments to Issues Nos.4 and 5, attempted to argue that the respondent has miserably failed to prove that he required the- suit shop in good faith for his personal use and that the evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant has not been properly appreciated which has materially prejudiced the interest of the appellant. The learned counsel contended that initially an application for eviction was moved on the ground of reconstruction only but subsequently the plea of personal need was raised, which by itself, is sufficient to cast doubt on the credentials of the respondent. He submitted that the pleas of re-construction and personal need being destructive to each other, should not have been made basis of the respondent's claim. In the last limb of argument the learned counsel urged that the appellant had spent substantial amount over repair and renovation of the suit shop with the consent and permission of the respondent and in case of eviction the appellant is entitled for costs of improvements. He relied upon Mst. Saira Bai v. Syed Anisur Rehman 1989 SCMR 1366, National Travels v. Abdul Qayyum and another 1988 SCMR 261 and Ghulam Muhammad Khan v. Muhammad Khalid 2000 CLC 764.
5. Conversely, Mr. Saeedullah, Advocate, for the , respondent supported the impugned judgments and decrees and prayed for their sustenance.
6. In determining whether a particular premises required by landlord for personal use, fundamental importance is to be attached to statement of landlord himself. Section 13(4) of the Ordinance is an adequate safeguard against abuse of provisions of section 13(3)(a)(ii) by landlord. Where statement of landlord is confidence-inspiring and no material is on record to detract from its veracity, such statement should be given all important weight and shall not be treated as statement 'of an interested person. (1992 SCMR 437). A landlord is primarily responsible for establishing his claim through cogent and reliable evidence. The need has to be reasonable and bona fide and not actuated by bad faith and ulterior motive. Good faith means honestly and not motivated by oblique motive. ##TSE##
7. In the instant case, it stands established from the evidence on record that landlord is an Engineer and having retired in 1996, he is out of job. The landlord proposes to establish an Engineering Workshop in the suit shop. He possesses sufficient experience and skill in this field. The landlord has produced ample evidence in support of his claim which has not been dislodged by the appellant to indicate lack of good faith on the part of the respondent. The respondent was subjected to a test of lengthy and searching cross-examination in order to shatter his veracity but nothing material could be solicited to doubt his credentials. The witnesses produced by the respondent also support him on all material particulars and they are consistent in their statements regarding bona fide need of the respondent. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the evidence produced by his client to dislodge the claim of the respondent has not been assessed in its true perspective which has resulted in manifest injustice. The submission of the learned counsel has not impressed me. The findings of the learned trial Judge on issues, found against the appellant, are supported by actual evidence on record and no misreading or non-reading of evidence has been pointed out. Question of bona fide requirement is purely a question of fact. Where two Courts below concurrently find premises being required bona fide by the landlord-for his personal use, the question is not open to review by High Court in second appeal, unless findings of the two Courts below are shown to have been based on misreading or non-reading of evidence or error in procedure by law affecting ultimate decision of the case on merits.
' In the present case, as stated above, the respondent is a retired Engineer and he is out of job. The respondent proposes to establish a workshop in the suit premises to earn his livelihood. The respondent has produced sufficient evidence to prove his claim which has remained unchallenged. So far as the question with regard to payment of improvements is concerned, the appellant has brought nothing on record to establish that the suit shop was repaired or renovated with the consent and permission of the respondent and as such he is entitled for recovery of the costs of improvements. It has been vehemently argued on behalf of the appellant that in the beginning the respondent had taken a plea of reconstruction and subsequently the ground of personal use was added, which cast doubt on the bona fide of the respondent and both the pleas being destructive to each other, cannot be allowed to be taken in the same breath. The submission of the learned counsel is not tenable. Landlord's claim for reconstructing his premises is not necessarily inconsistent with his claim of requirement of demised premises for his personal use.
Pleas of personal requirement and reconstruction are not mutually destructive and both can be pleaded instantaneously. PLD 1976 Lah, 275.
8. Adverting to the case-law cited on behalf of the appellant, I am of the opinion that the cited rulings are quite distinguishable and speak of the different situation. The rulings do not support the appellant's case in any manner.
9. Resultantly, I find that the findings of the Courts below on the point of personal need/requirement of the landlord are correct and hardly call for interference of this Court. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any misreading or non-reading of evidence, nor violation of any principle of law applicable to the case of this nature. The appeal is found without merit. The same is dismissed and the parties are left to bear their own costs.