2000 PLP 1601 (YLR)

Respondent/landlord filed an eviction petition under the Punjab Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 against the appellant. After submission of the written reply by the appellant following issues were framed: ‑‑‑ (1) Whether the respondent has committed a wilful default in payment of rent with effect from 1st of October, 1995 to onwards? OPA. (2) Whether the respondent is liable to pay the conservancy charges at the rate of Rs.1.800 per month? OPA. (3) Whether the suit premises is required by the petitioner for his personal use and occupation bona fidely? OPA. (4) Relief.

2. Learned Rent Controller allowed the application on the basis of finding on Issue No.3 and directed the appellant to vacate the premises within 3 months from 6‑10‑1998. This order was challenged in appeal and the learned District Judge dismissed the same and affirmed the order of the learned. Rent Controller.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant challenged the concurrent findings on the ground that the learned Courts below have not correctly decided Issues Nos.3.and 4 and have failed to take note of the fact that respondent had other property which could be used for his bona fide need of business. On 25‑2‑2000 I heard learned counsel for the appellant and was not inclined to issue notice to respondent on merit. Learned counsel for the appellant thereafter conceded that he would not press this appeal provided some reasonable time is given to the appellant to vacate the premises. Learned counsel for the respondent has appeared in response to the afore‑referred pre‑admission notice. He agrees that respondent shall grant reasonable time 'to the appellant to make alternate arrangements. However, learned counsel for the appellant has taken an altogether different stand today and‑says that appellant does not want any time and wants this appeal to be decided on merits.

4. Heard.

5. On .25‑2‑2000 following order was passed by this Court:‑‑‑ "Learned counsel for the appellant after arguing his case for a while, submits that he would not press his appeal and would pray for extension of some reasonable time.

2. Let pre‑admission notice to the respondent be issued for 13‑3‑2000. On 13‑3‑2000 none appeared and the case had to be adjourned. Today, learned counsel for the appellant has taken a different stand. A counsel is bound by his undertaking which he had given after seeking instructions from the appellant who was present in Court on that date. It is not the case of the appellant's learned counsel that the stand taken on 25‑2‑2000 was not under instruction from the appellant nor has the appellant given any application today that the afore‑referred undertaking was given without his consent. In these circumstances, appellant is bound by the earlier undertaking and the appeal merits dismissal on this ground.

6. However, coming to the merits of this case, the relationship of landlord and tenant is not denied. Appellant is in possession of the premises since 1973. The eviction has been ordered on the ground of personal bona fide need. The contention of appellant/tenant that respondent/landlord had other property which could be utilised for personal need is not tenable as it is for landlord to decide and work out details for his personal need. A tenant has no right to put any clog on that right. However, if respondent/landlord uses the premises for purpose other than personal bona fide need, appellant has a remedy in law. In the afore- referred circumstances, I do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./G‑23/L Appeal dismissed.