1972 PLP 561 (SCMR)

ANWARUL HAQ, J.‑Petitioner No. 1, Malik Nisar Mohammad, is a tenant of the respondent, Abdul Rauf (who is also his brother) in Shop No. 2553/AR, situate in Bazar Dalgaran, Peshawar City. The respondent applied to the Rent Controller for the petitioners' ejectment on two counts :‑‑ (a) that the tenant bad sublet the property to petitioner No. 2, Abdul Hamid, without the consent of the landlord ; and (b) that the shop was needed in good faith by the landlord for his personal use. The application was, however, dismissed by the learned Rent Controller by his order dated 1‑12‑

69. Thereupon, the respondent filed an appeal which was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Peshawar, by his order dated the 28th of March 19,0, on the ground that the shop was needed by the landlord in good faith for his personal use. The learned Additional District Judge does not appear to have recorded any finding on the question of subletting. Aggrieved by the appellate order of the learned Additional District Judge, the petitioners filed a second appeal in the High Court which has been dismissed by a learned Single Judge by his order dated the 8th of March 1972. In this petition for special leave to appeal, it is contended that the respondent has been making conflicting statements regarding his personal requirement and therefore the Courts below were not justified in accepting this as a ground for ordering the petitioners' ejectment. The learned counsel has drawn our attention to the fact that in the application for ejectment the respondent had merely stated that as he was carrying on the business of shoe‑making in his house, he needed the shop for his personal use, whereas in his evidence before the Rent Controller the respondent deposed that he was carrying on the business of making shoes in his house and as his children were growing up he needed the shop for his personal used. It appears to the learned counsel for the petitioners that these are conflicting statements and tend to falsify the stand taken by the respondent. Not much reasoning or argument is needed to see that the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners have no substance whatsoever. In the application for ejectment the respondent was not required to spell out all the evidence or factors in support of his personal requirement, and these things had to be stated only during the course of evidence. The Courts below have rightly observed that the circumstances of the respondent, namely, that his children were growing up and he could no longer carry on the business of shoe‑making at his house, clearly established his Bona fide personal need. No justification is made out for our interference in the matter. Accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Leave refused.