1985 PLP 955 (SCMR)

SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑ The petitioner, a tenant, under order of ejectment seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 16‑7‑1984 whereby a constitutional petition filed by him, was dismissed. The petitioner was occupying a building comprising, it is said four shops, a go down and a Chaubara as a tenant of Rehmat Ali and Barkat Ali predecessor‑‑in‑interest of respondents 3 to

19. They sought the eviction of the petitioner on the grounds that there was default in the payment of rent, the un authorised alterations had been made imparing the value and utility of the premises and that the property was bona fide required by the landlord. The application was contested. The Controller held the need of the sons of Barkat Ali established but not other ground on which ejectment was sought and ordered it. During the pendency of the proceedings both Barkat Ali and Rehmat Ali died and have been succeeded by the respondents 3 to

19. The appellate Court affirmed the finding and the High Court refused to interfere. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was two‑fold. In the first place, it was contended that though this building had been acquired for commercial purposes but to the knowledge of the landlord it had been converted into an industrial concern and was being used as such at that stage and hence was outside the pale of the Rent Control Ordinance and the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller. The other contention was that in the ejectment application the two landlords had mentioned their own requirements for getting the petitioner evicted but at the evidence stage it was not the need of the landlords who had instituted the application but of one of the three sons of one of them had been pressed and upheld by the Rent Controller and the first appellate Court. Such an alteration in the stand of the petitioner should not have been allowed. We find from examining the record that the Controller and the appellate Court came to the conclusion that it was not let out as an industrial premises and it squarely fell within the definition of non residential building defined as one "solely for the purpose of business or trade". We find that the contention of the learned counsel for the is petitioner cannot prevail for the premises fall within the definition of building as defined in section 2 (a) and the non‑residential building as l defined in clause (d) of section 2 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance. The Controller had, therefore, the jurisdiction. It is factually correct that in the application for ejectment then landlords had mentioned their personal need but it was subsequently in evidence that the need of the sons advanced found to be bona fide and proper and upheld by the Controller. As it is not shown that any 1B prejudice has been caused and the need of the three sons who are now landlords is genuine no useful purpose could be served by examining the legal question in the abstract. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused. M.I. Leave refused.