1988 PLP 2182 (CLC)

The facts giving rise to this writ petition are that respondents Nos. 3 to 9 filed a petition for ejectment of Salah‑ud‑Din petitioner from a shop on the ground of personal need. The petitioner resisted the application which led to the framing of the following issues:‑ (1) Whether the petitioners have not served a notice under section 13/ A of the Rent Restriction Ordinance? O . P . R . (2) Whether the petitioners are estopped by their words and conduct? O.P.R. (3) Whether the application lacks proper court‑fee? O.P.R. (4) Whether the petitioners need the suit premises for their or their children's personal need in good faith? O.P.A. (5) Relief . After recording evidence the learned Rent Controller vide judgment dated 16‑12‑1986 held that the respondents had succeeded in proving their bona fide personal need and in consequence ordered ejectment of the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad on 23‑12‑1987. Hence this writ petition.

2. It is mainly contended that the petitioner was running business in the shop in dispute and that the learned Appellate Court while dismissing his appeal had not allowed him any time to vacate the same although a request was made for giving reasonable time to find out suitable business place.

3. The respondents have appeared through a counsel and have brought to the notice of the Court that possession of disputed premises has since been obtained by them from the petitioner. A photo copy of warrant for possession has also been filed by them.

4. Notwithstanding the above development I have perused the judgments of the Courts below to see as to whether their findings on the ground of personal need were correctly arrived at or not. According to the respondents the shop in dispute was required for the use of Aslam A.W.III, who while appearing in the witness‑box stated that he was serving in Karachi at a very meagre salary and was not having any other shop and that he wanted to shift to Faisalabad for running his own business. There was no rebuttal to the above assertion by the petitioner. Accordingly the Courts below were of the view that the respondents were able to prove their bona fide personal need of the shop in dispute resulting in passage of ejectment order against the petitioner. The above conclusion is supported by evidence and I see no reason to differ with it or to upset the same. The petitioner has failed to show any violation of law on the subject. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. H . B . T . / S‑257 / L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.