1994 PLP 355 (SCMR)

M. Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant (in both the appeals). Ch. Altaf Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court and Anwar H. Mir, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents (in both the Appeals). Date of hearing: 17th November, 1992. ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J: ‑‑This judgment will dispose of two appeals which are directed against the judgment of the High Court dated 16‑5‑1992.

2. The facts of the case have been given in the Leave Granting Order which read as hereunder:‑‑ "In 1981 the petitioner filed three ejectment petitions against Haji Mushtaq Ahmad Pervaiz, Umar Hayat and Syed Ali Mehdi Zaidi, seeking their eviction from Shops Nos.l, 2 and 3 respectively. All the eviction petitions were compromised as the rents were increased by the three respondents. In a second attempt in 1984, the petitioner got evicted Umar Hayat from Shop No.l measuring 21' x 12' and from store room measuring 1' x 12'. In 1986, the petitioner filed two separate applications for the eviction of Mushtaq Ahmed Pervaiz and Syed Ali Mehdi Zaidi respondents from Shops Nos. 2 and 3 respectively on grounds of default in payment of rent and bona fide personal need. The Rent Controller, Wah Cantt., through his separate judgments dated 25‑3‑1990 and 29‑7‑1990, accepted both the ejectment petitions and directed the eviction of Haji Mushtaq Ahmad Pervaiz and Syed Ali Mehdi Zaidi on the plea of personal need. The plea of default as set up by the petitioner was rejected. Haji Mushtaq Ahmed pervaiz and Syed Ali Mehdi Zaidi respondents preferred separate appeals before the High Court, which were accepted by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court by separate judgments dated 16‑5‑1992. The learned Judge in both the appeals held that the landlady did not require the shops bona fide for her personal need. Accordingly, he set aside the impugned orders of the Rent Controller, Wah cantt. and dismissed the two ejectment petitions filed by the landlady. Mst. Firdous petitioner/landlady now seeks leave to appeal against the said two judgment,"

3. Leave to Appeal was granted to consider whether the evidence on the record does make out a case in favour of the appellant that she requires the two shops in good faith for her own use and whether the words "become unsuitable for his needs" as appearing in the second proviso to sub‑clause (b) of subsection (4) of section 17 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act include a case of extension of business.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the judgment of the Courts below on the ground that a shop is already in occupation of the respondents and she is doing business and this shop is sufficient for her need. She has failed to establish that the two shops in question are also bona fide required by her. The landlady in her application for eviction of the respondents has categorically stated that that shop is not sufficient for her requirement and she needs two shops in question for the expansion of her business. Her husband has appeared as a witness and he has supported the contention of the appellant. The husband after retirement is looking after the business.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents next submitted that under section 17(4)(b) a landlord can only seek eviction of a tenant if he requires it in good faith for his own use. He submitted that as the appellant is a teacher in Federal Government Public High School, she cannot do the business herself. She has stated that she had been permitted by the authority to do the business. Additionally, she has stated that she is doing business through her husband and nieces. P.W. 2 Muhammad Sabir, the husband of the appellant, stated that he is looking after the business. He further stated that the present shop in their occupation is not sufficient for their requirement. They intend to install three or four machines. The witnesses were cross‑examined by the respondent but they have established their bona fides.

6. As regards the legal objection raised by the learned counsel, suffice it to say that the appellant has established that she requires the two shops in good faith for her own use. The term "own use" cannot be restricted to mean that the appellant cannot do business through her husband and nieces.

7. The appeals are accepted, the judgments of the High Court are set aside and those of the Rent Controller are restored. The respondents are allowed one year to hand over the vacant possession of the shops in question on or before 17th of November, 1993. A.A./F‑275/S. Appeals accepted.