1980 PLP 2 (SCMR)

KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.‑The dispute in this case is about a shop known as Khuda No. 1 situated in Khand Bazar, Gujranwala Town; (i) Muhammad Rafiq and (ii) Abdur Rashid (hereinafter called the landlords) filed as application under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban. Rent Restriction Ordinance VI of 1959 against Haji Muhammad (now represented by his legal representatives/petitioners) for his eviction from the aforesaid shop on the grounds of default in the payment of rent, subletting to one Muhammad Ashraf and bona fide requirement for personal use. The application was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller on 11‑2‑1971.

2. The landlords filed an appeal which was accepted by the learned District Judge on 14‑9‑1971, who held that the charge of subletting and the bona fide requirement of the landlords for their own use had duly been established on the record. Consequently the learned District Judge directed the eviction of the tenant from the shop in dispute.

3. The tenants/petitioners filed an S. A. O. No. 247/1971 but without any success as the same was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court on 12‑6‑1979. The petitioners have come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the same to this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the finding of the Courts below that the tenant had sublet the shop to one Muhammad Ashraf was not correct, inasmuch as the same was not borne out from the record. He submitted that his client had produced a register of his employees, which contained the name of Muhammad Ashraf the so‑called sub‑tenant and which shoved that he was not a sub‑tenant but only one of his employees in that very shop. Learned counsel argued that in the face of this docu mentary evidence no finding adverse to him could have been given. The contention has no merit. The point whether the shop was sublet or not is one of fact on which the two Courts below have concurrently held against the petitioners. Such a finding ordinarily cannot be taken exception to this Court unless there is any omission or misreading of evidence which however is not the case here. The register to which reference has been made has duly been taken into consideration and it was held that it could not be relied upon inter alia because Muhammad Ashraf the so‑called employee himself was not produced by the tenant as a witness. The finding of the Courts below on the subject is fully supported by the attending evidence and does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference by this Court. The result is that on this finding alone the eviction of the petitioners from the shop in dispute is perfectly justified.

5. Though what has been written above is sufficient to dismiss this petition but the learned counsel wanted to challenge the finding regarding the bona fide requirement of the landlords for their personal use. He submitted that the landlords had few other shops also in the same locality and in the circumstances there was no justification to order the eviction of his client from the shop presently in dispute. The contention has no merit. The shops to which reference is made were' all occupied by other tenants which showed that the landlords were justified in seeking eviction from the present shop for their personal requirement. Learned counsel submitted that earlier the landlords had got vacated another shop in which Abdur Rashid respondent No. 2 (one of the landlords) was doing business. However, it has come on the record that the shop is not of any substantial measurement and if to supplement the same the present shop which measures only 2 x 2 is being claimed by the landlord their requirement cannot be taken exception to

6. The upshot of the above discussion is that looked at from whatever angle this petition has no merit and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.