2001MLD56 (PLP)

3. The pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following issues:‑‑ (1) Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties? OPP. (2) Whether the respondent is liable to lie ejected on the grounds mentioned in para. 6 of the petition? OPP (3) Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR (4) Relief.

4. In support of their stand landlords/applicants/respondents examined A. W.1 Tariq Masood and A. W.2 Kh. Abdul Latif (special attorney of petitioners/Respondent No.1) rebuttal the tenant/appellant examined RW‑1 Sh. Muhamad Munir and RW‑2 Hamid Asghar as his special attorney.

5. After going through the evidence produced by the parties the trial Court dismissed ejectment petition vide order dated '19‑2‑1998. The landlords felt aggrieved of the said order of ejectment and assailed the same by way of appeal which was heard by the learned Additional District Jhelum who vide order dated 5‑10‑1998 accepted the same and ordered the ejectment of the tenant/appellant within a period of ‑3 months. The tenant/appellant has felt aggrieved of the said order and filed the instant S.A.O.

6. Arguments have been heard and record perused.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned order dated 5‑10‑199$ mainly .on the ground that landlords/respondents are admittedly British passport holders and their family is settled in England, that the instant ejectment is being sought just to rent out the dispute property at some higher rate, that it is admitted by A.W.2 Kh. Abdul Latif that respondents owned another shop in Nayya Bazar Jhelum but this fact has 'been concealed by them while seeking the ejectment of appellant, that the appellate Court has not discussed the evidence of the parties, as discussed by the trial Court vide its order dated 19‑2‑1998.

8. Conversely the impugned judgment has been supported by the learned counsel for the respondents/landlords. While defending the impugned order it is also asserted by the learned counsel for the respondents that admittedly the appellant has got eight other shops excluding the one in dispute and this fact alone disentitles him to retain the shop in question. He further contends that law has provided the protection to a tenant to seek its re‑occupation if the same is not occupied by the landlord within the stipulated period as given in section 13(4) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance. He further contends that mere fact that applicants/respondents are British Passport holders does not mean that they have no right to settle down in Pakistan and to carry on the business according to their own sweet‑will. He further argued that even if it is assumed that the respondents/landlords have not mentioned the factum of having other shop even then this fact does not tell upon their bona fides as the said shop is not situated in the same urban area in which the disputed shop, is situated. He thus submitted that appellate Court has passed the impugned order in accordance with law.

9. Through the instant ejectment petition landlords/respondents have sought the ejectment of tenant/appellant from the shop in question on the ground of their personal need. Both the parties have examined two witnesses each in support of their respective contentions. Admittedly the tenant/appellant owns eight other shops besides the one in dispute which is on rent with him. On the other hand the landlords/respondents initially claimed to be owner of only one shop whereas later on it has been admitted by A.W.2 that they own one another shop situated in Nayya Bazar. The disputed shop is situated in Main Bazar Jhelum. Even if it is assumed that landlords/respondents have got another shop and this fact has not been disclosed in the ejectment petition, even then keeping in view the number of shops which the tenant/appellant is also occupying/possessing, that concealment hardly makes any difference and tells upon the bona fide of the landlords/respondents. The landlords/respondents, no doubt, are British Passport holders, yet this fact alone does not disentitle them to seek ejectment of their property for their personal need. If the landlords/respondents do not occupy the shop within stipulated period, the tenant/appellant has every right to seek its re‑possession as contemplated under section 13(4) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance. Thus the law has provided protection to the tenant against a mala fide ejectment.

10. This being the factual position the contention of landlords/respondents that they require the disputed shop, is borne out from the record. Resultantly appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. However, the appellant is granted a period of two months to vacate the disputed shop. He is further directed to deposit the rent as ordered by the trial Court during the period allowed to him for vacating the disputed shop. H.B.T./M‑335/L ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.