' This be considered as admitted case.
2. This Second Appeal Against Order is directed in a rent case against the ejectment order dated 7- 7-2001 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Lahore and the judgment of the First Appellate Court dated 4-1-2002 to examine the legality and validity of the impugned judgments. Brief facts of this Second Appeal are that respondents being owners and landlord filed ejectment petition against the appellants in respect of the property consisting of three rooms, one store, bathroom and courtyard bearing No.S-26-R-6-A, 3 Abbot Road, Lahore, which was on rent at the rate of Rs.246 per month in possession of appellants being tenants. The sole point which was raised in the ejectment petition is the bona fide requirement of the disputed property for personal need and occupation of the respondents.
3. Arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellants are that appellants are not defaulters and the ejectment petition is accepted on the sole ground of personal requirement although the respondents have not been able to successfully prove the bona fide requirement of personal need of disputed property.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no legal infirmity in the concurrent findings of law and facts of the learned Courts below. Evidence of A.W.1 and A.W.2 has successfully proved that they require the disputed property for personal need as landlord, he has indulged in variety of business as is clear from evidence of A.W.1 that he is dealing in computer marketing, spinning mills and glass business and he needs the disputed property for his staff and it is his prerogative that he should conduct or deal with his business under one roof. The disputed property is required for accommodation of his staff. He is having his office of spinning mills situated at Sheikhupura while he needs office at one place. He further argued that evidence of R.W.2 shows that he has never visisted the disputed property sometimes back when the film business was on top they were using this office but now they have their own Bari Studio and this office is no more being used for marketing.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence of A.Ws. And R.Ws.
And also the impugned judgments. Both the leaned Courts below have given issue-wise findings and they have discussed all the evidence of A.Ws. And R.Ws., their examination-inchief and cross- examination, and decided Issue No.4, which is interconnected with other issues in favour of the respondents. Learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to show what part of evidence was not read or misread by the learned Courts below. In fact the entire evidence was appreciated and both the learned Courts below have concurrently held that the respondents need the disputed property for their personal use. Even otherwise the landlord has a right to conduct his business at one place and under one roof. Bona fide personal need of landlord--even the testimony and landlord was sufficient to establish his personal bona fide requirement "Sakha Ullah v. Mst. Tahir Almas alias Tahira Shabbir and another" (2001 CLC 1641); Noot Jehan Begam's case (1991 SCM R 2300) and Jehangir Rustam Kaka's case (1992 SCM R 1296).
6. The impugned judgments are concurrent and not contrary to any law and the learned Courts below have not failed to determine material issues of law nor in the impugned judgments any substantial error hasbeen pointed out, therefore, finding no substance in the instant second appeal the same is dismissed. However, in the interest of justice 4(four) months time is given to the appellants to vacate the dispute premises intact and hand over the possession to the respondents on expiry of four months from the date of judgment.