1979 PLP 118 (SCMR)

MUHAMMAD HALEEM, J.‑The petitioner seeks special leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 19th of September 1978, dismissing S. A. O. No. 430 of 1978 in limine. The petitioner was a tenant of a shop bearing No. 97 situate in Anarkali, Lahore, at a rental of Rs. 400 per mensem. The respondent sued for his ejectment on 4th of October 1973, on the grounds: firstly, that he had defaulted in the payment of rent since August 1972; secondly, that by damaging the wooden fixtures of the shop he had impaired its utility; and thirdly, that it was required bona fide for the use of his son, Mazhar Hussain, who was a graduate and being jobless wanted to start carpet business in the premises. Evidence was led to establish that Mazhar Hussain had received training in the business who also appeared as a witness and confirmed that he required the premises for starting his business. Further, the respondent examined himself and denied the suggestion that the requirement was not in good faith as he wanted to enhance the rent which was declined by the petitioner. In rebuttal no evidence was led to controvert the plea of the respondent that the shop was required for the use of his sod. He further deposed that the petitioner had damaged the wooden fixtures which had impaired its utility. On both these grounds the Rent C9ntroller held against the petitioner but rejected the round relating to the default in the payment of rent as the petitioner hauled evidence to establish the regular payment of rent. Accordingly, by order dated 1st of October 1974, the petitioner was directed to vacate the premises. In first appeal the learned Sessions Judge held that the petitioner had failed to establish that any demand for the enhancement of rent was made; and that equally he had not established that any other shop of the respondent was lying vacant which was suitable for his needs. Accordingly, he accepted the conclusion of the Rent Controller on this point. He further accepted the finding that the petitioner had damaged the wooden fixtures of the shop and thereby impaired its utility. The petitioner's appeal, therefore, failed and was dismissed on 23rd of July 1978. In second appeal. the High Court accepted the concurrent findings of the Courts below and dismissed the appeal in limine. In seeking leave to appeal the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Courts below were in error in not considering the implications of clauses (b) and (c) of section 13(3) (a) (ii) but apart from alleging that the respondent owned other shops no question was put to the respondent as to whether he was in possession of some other shop in the same urban area which was suitable for his needs nor that he had vacated any shop without sufficient cause after the commencement of this Ordinance. In any case, the first Appellate Court has adverted to the failure of the petitioner to establish that the respondent had any vacant shop which was suitable for his needs. Accordingly, we see no force id this contention of the petitioner particularly when the appellate Court had re‑examined the finding on this issue and concurred with the opinion of the courts below. His next contention was that the petitioner's evidence; was not discussed but that too appears to be misconceived as not only the Rent Controller but also the appellate Court has gone into the question of the increase of rent and held against the petitioner. There is, therefore, no substance in the petition ‑which is dismissed. However, we would grant four months time to vacate the shop subject to the payment of rent. Petition dismissed.