1991 PLP 2335 (SCMR)

NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑‑This petition for special leave to appeal arises out of the decision of the Lahore High Court, accepting the landlord's application for ejectment of the petitioner, thereby reversing the judgment and order passed by the Additional District Judge, Lyallpur, dated 7th October, 1976, and restoring that of the Rent Controller dated 9th June, 1976. The petitioner's eviction was sought on several grounds, but on appeal the landlord abandoned the other issues and pressed his case for ejectment of the respondent on the ground of personal need. The Rent Controller found that the landlord's requirement was bona fide and directed that the petitioner had rendered himself liable to ejectment under section 13(3)(a)(ii) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance. In appeal the learned Additional District Judge reversed the finding of the Rent Controller on the ground that as the landlord was occupying another rented shop and the eviction therefrom had been and could be successfully avoided by him by enhancing the rent, it could not be said that he was not in occupation of another shop suitable for his needs, as contemplated by section 13(3)(a)(ii) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance. The respondent‑landlord preferred an appeal to the High Court under section 15(4) of the Ordinance, and a learned Single Judge, relying on a judgment of this Court reported as Abdul Salam Akhtar v. Dr. Najam Parvez (1976 SCMR 52), held that the words "not occupying" in clause (b) of section 13(3)(a)(ii) of the Ordinance were used with reference to the premises owned by the landlord, and as the landlord had proved his suitability, he was entitled to get the shop in dispute evicted for his personal need under the law. In support of this petition it is argued that the finding of the learned Additional District Judge that the landlord's personal need was not genuine was based on correct reading of the evidence and was not liable to be interfered with by the High Court. We observe, however, that the learned Judge in the High Court, after a perusal of the entire evidence on record, found that the suitability and the bona fides of the landlord were fully established on the record and see no reason to differ with‑ the view taken by the learned Judge in the High Court. The only point, therefore, that remains for consideration is with regard to the interpretation of clause (b) of section 13(3)(a)(ii) of the Ordinance. After the decision of this Court cited by the High Court, this Court had another occasion to examine this question in Abdul Aziz and another v. Muhammad Ibrahim (PLD 1977 SC 442), wherein the, observations of Hamoodur Rahman. CJ. (as he then was) in 1976 SCMR 52 were considered and reliance was placed on Maxwell's Interpretation of Statutes, and the view taken was that the word "building" in clause (b) of section 13(3)(a)(ii) means a building owned by the landlord. Therefore, the circumstance that the respondent‑landlord was occupying a rented shop would not be a legal impediment in seeking eviction of a tenant from the shop owned by him; rather it would tend to indicate the unsuitability of the shop in occupation of the landlord himself. The view taken by the learned Additional District Judge was thus clearly erroneous and rightly set aside by the High Court in appeal. The petition, therefore, fails and is hereby rejected. However, we allow the petitioner a period of four months from today to vacate the shop provided, of course, he continues to pay rent before the 15th of each calendar month. A.A./A‑882/S Petition dismissed.