MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.- 0n 17.4.1999, Mst. Perveen Akhtar, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent filed an application for the ejectment of the appellant from a non-residential building located in the Rawalpindi urban area. According to the said application, the appellant was a tenant in the entire building but in the first instance he was paying half of the monthly rent which comes to Rs.6;000/- to the said lady, In January, 1998 she was transferred the remaining portion as well and consequently she became entitled to the receipt of rent of the entire shop i.e. Rs. 15,000/- per month. However, she proceeded to allege that the appellant had failed to pay the rent at the rate of Rs.6000/- per month w.e.f. February, 1998 and then Rs.12,000/- w.e.f. 4.11,1998. She also complained that the statutory increase had not been paid to her. She further stated that the building is required for the bona fide personal use of herself and her sons Muhammad Bilal and Umar Faruq. The appellant in his written reply, after admitting the relationship of landlady and tenant proceeded to deny the said allegations. According to him, the rent of the entire shop was Rs.6,000/- per month and he was paying Rs.3,000/- being 1/2 share of the said lady to her. After the decision of the Court whereby she became the owner of remaining half as well he started paying Rs. 6,000/- per month to her. He accordingly denied the rate of rent claimed by the landlady. He further stated that he paid the entire rent but somehow the lady proceeded to retain the receipt book containing the original receipts from April, 1998 to February, 1999. He, however, stated that he has the photo-copies of the receipts. Regarding the ground of bona fide need for personal use it was argued that the said landlady does not require the shop. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties were recorded. The leaned Rent Controller while holding that the rate of rent was Rs.3,000/- and 6,000/- as pleaded by the appellant, proceeded to hold that he has failed to pay or tender for payment rent at the agreed rate w.e.f. April, 1998. He also found that the shop is required bona finely for personal occupation and use. The application was' accordingly allowed and an ejectment order was passed on 20.7.2000. Against this order the appellant filed a first appal while the respondent filed cross-objections against the findings as the rate of rent. Both the matters were heard by a learned Addl. District Judge, Rawalpindi who dismissed the appeal as well as the cross- objections on 12.9.2001.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the evidence on record has been misread inasmuch as a portion of the statement made by the appellant has been read out of context while holding him as a defaulter in payment of rent. As to the ground of personal use, the learned counsel states that it is not believable that the said sons of the deceased landlady who are highly qualified would run the shop and needed it for the said purpose. He has also tried to argue that the application on the said ground stood abated by the death of the landlady. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, supports the impugned orders with reference to the evidence on record which according to him has been properly read by the learned lower Courts.
3. I have gone through the Trial Court's records with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties. I have already reproduced above the material contents of the pleadings on record. Now whereas the landlady had alleged default since Feb., 1998 regarding half amount of rent and then from 4.11.998 regarding full amount the case set-up by the appellant was that he has paid the rent at the agreed rent against receipts but the landlady proceeded to get hold of the receipts book containing original receipts. Now he put in appearance as PW-1. He stated as follows in response to cross- examination on the question of payment of rent as alleged by him:- {{URDU MISS}} To my mind no misreading of the-record can be attributed to any of the learned Courts below in view of the said specific statements made by the appellant in the witness-box. The learned lower Courts are right in holding that by making the said admission his plea, which even otherwise is not proved on record, that the landlady somehow managed to get hold of the original receipts, stands negated.
4. So far as the matter of personal use is concerned, it is true that one of the said sons is stated to be a Ph.d. And the other an M.A. However, the learned Courts below could not have been oblivious of the state of acute unemployment particularly of the educated persons in our country which of course is an unfortunate fact. The land-lady has set up her case by stating that despite the fact that her sons are so educated, they do not have any job or business. Further it stands admitted on record that the respondents are neither owners nor in possession of any other shop in the concerned urban area. The ejectment was sought on the ground of personal requirement of said sons of the deceased landlady. This being so there is no question of abatement of ejectment petition qua the ground of bona fide personal requirement. Reference be made to the case of Haji Muhammad Siddique v. District Judge (1990 SCM R 997).
5. Having thus examined the records, no question of law arises in this SAO and the impugned orders are supported by the evidence on record. This SAO is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. However, appellant shall deliver the vacant possession of the shop in question to the respondents on or before 31.12.2003 failing which the respondents shall get the possession while executing the ejectment order. The records of the learned Courts below be remitted back immediately.