1979 PLP 372 (SCMR)

G. SAFDAR SHAH, J.‑The dispute in this case relates to a portion of godown No. U/218‑A measuring 3 ' x 8 which has been admittedly used as a shop by the petitioner since 1964‑

65. The record. would show that the entire said godown was an evacuee property and the same transferred to late Muhammad Rafique, the predecessor in interest of respondents No&. 1 to 10 by the Settlement Department and in that behalf he was issued the Permanent Transfer Deed. On 26‑5‑1976 late Muhammad Rafique filed an ejectment petition against the petitioner in the Court of Rent Controller, Rawalpindi on two grounds :‑ (1) His default in paying him rent for the period from June 1973, and (2) the bona fide requirement of the shop for the use of his son. The petitioner in the written statement filed by him not only denied the said allegations but also denied that Muhammad Rafique was his landlord. During the course of the proceedings before the learned Rent Controller, however, the petitioner withdrew the said allegation and admitted s the title of Muhammad Rafique. In this view the learned Rent Controller framed in the proceedings only two issues, namely (1) Whether the petitioner was defaulter in paying rent (?) and (2) Whether the shop was reasonably and in good faith required by late Muhammad Rafique for the use of his son (?) Upon these issues the parties led their respective evidence But preferring the evidence of the respondent, the learned Rent Controller allowed the ejectment application and directed the ejectment of the petitioner. It may be mentioned, however, that during the pendency of the proceedings Muhammad Rafique died and in the result respondents Nos being his legal heirs, were brought on the record of the case as petitioners. Being aggrieved of the said order, the petitioner went in appeal to the Court of Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi but his appeal was d with the modification that he was held not to have committed any dismissed default in paying rent to the respondents. Finally, he went to the High Court in second rent appeal but the same was also dismissed by the impugned judgment. It is in this background that the petitioner has come up to this Court praying leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of the High Court. The learned counsel contended before us that; (1) the Courts below, including the High Court, were in error to hold that the respondents needed the shop in dispute bona fide, reasonably and in good faith, and (2) that after the death of Muhammad Rafique the ejectment application filed by him against the petitioner lost efficacy inasmuch as the son Muhammad Waheed, for the use of whom the shop in dispute was sought to be vacated, would be deemed to have come into the of his late father alongwith his other brothers. possession of the shop We are afraid, there is no force in either of these contentions. The concurrent finding of the Courts below, including the High Court is the shop, in. dispute, was required bona fide, reasonably and in good faith for the use of Muhammad Waheed, who, admittedly, was not working in the shop of his late father. In these circumstances the said finding, which is based on evidence, cannot be questioned in this Court as the same is necessarily a finding of fact. As regards the other contention urged by the learned counsel, the learned Judge in the High Court took the view that; "This plea of the learned counsel is obviously without any merit. The word `landlord' in the context used in the said section will be inclusive of one of them. The plea otherwise also is not available in that the other joint landlords concur in the prayer that the shop in dispute was needed by one of them and as such this being their, personal arrangement, the tenant has no locus standi to raise an objection in this regard. The interpretation which the learned counsel wants me to put on section 13(3) (ii) would lead to anamolous situations, to which I would not like to be a party." With this view of the learned Judge we find ourselves in agree ment. The admitted position is which even finds support from the title of the petition itself that late Muhammad Rafique had a large family consisting of his widow, 3 grown‑up sons, 2 grown‑up daughters and 4 minor children. Out of the 3 grown‑up sons two were working with him in his shop whereas his son Muhammad Waheed was unemployed and it was for his benefit that be had sought the ejectment of the petitioner from the shop in dispute. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the, view taken by the High Court is illegal or improper. This petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed. However, we allow the petitioner three months' time from today to vacate and hand over the possession of the shop in dispute to the respondents subject, of course, to his paying them the rent for the said period. Petition dismissed.