1982 PLP 256 (SCMR)

Mian Zafar Yasin, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmad Kadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent. Date of hearing: 18th November, 1979. KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.‑The dispute in this case is about a shop bearing No. 57‑H, Rail Bazar, Burewala town, District Vehari. Habib Ullah (hereinafter called the landlord) filed an application under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance V1 of 1959, against Hadiat Ullah the present petitioner (hereinafter called the tenant) on the ground of requirement for personal use, default in payment of rent and damage to tine property. The application was accepted by the learned Rent Controller who vide his order dated 15‑6‑1977, directed the eviction of the petitioner.

2. The petitioner/tenant filed an appeal but without any success as the same was dismissed by the learned District Judge on 8‑1‑1978.

3. The petitioner then filed a second appeal being S. A. O. No. 28 of 1978, which also met the same fate and was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court on 21‑10‑1978. The petitioner has come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the same to this Court. At this place, leaving aside the unnecessary details, it will be sufficient to mention that the eviction of the tenant on the ground of requirement for personal use has been maintained by all the Courts below.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that his client had filed an application before the learned District Judge on 10‑11‑1977, to show that the son of the landlord was occupying a shop in that very town, acted illegally in disallowing the same. This the High Court that the diligence, could have been produced before the learned Rent Controller and as such the same could not have later on been allowed to be introduced at the appeal stage. It was further held that the other shop, which was alleged to be in possession of the son of the landlord was merely a rented shop and did not belong to the landlord or his son and from that point of view as well the additional evidence sought to be adduced would be of no avail to the tenant. Learned counsel has not been able to point out any illegality in the aforesaid view or finding and as such we are not in a position to interfere with the same.

5. The next point argued was that the need of the landlord for personal use was not bona fide. This is a question of fact on which all the three Courts below have come to a concurrent finding against the petitioner after attending to all the relevant evidence led by the parties. Learned counsel has not been able to point out any omission or misreading of evidence.

6. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.