1981 PLP 299 (SCMR)

SHAFI-UR-REHMAN, J.--The petitioner, a tenant, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 2-6-1980 whereby reversing the order of the first appellate Court the ejectment order against the petitioner was restored.

2. The petitioner is in occupation of Shop No. P/ 25, Street No. 1, Ward No. 2, Gurdawara Bazar, Faisalabad. Ghulam Muhammad, the respondent, is his landlord. An ejectment application was filed by the landlord for getting the petitioner ejected on the sole ground that the shop was required for the personal use and for his sons. It was made clear in the ejectment application that the landlord and his five sons were all eligible to work on a shop and were, in the absence of a shop of their own, engaged in make-shift arrangement for earning their livelihood. The bona fide personal need of the landlord was disputed by the petitioner and this was the only question in issue.

3. The Rent Controller by an order dated 27-10-74 allowed the application of the landlord and directed the ejectment of the petitioner. The appeal of the tenant succeeded as the learned Additional District Judge came to the conclusion that the ejectment application was not bona fide. On second appeal the learned Judge in the High Court came to the conclusion that the findings of the first appellate Court were based on wrong assumption and the material evidence on record had been either ignored or misread. He accepted the appeal and restored the order of the Rent Controller. Hence this petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the landlord was required to establish either his own personal need or that of his named sons. He could not combine the needs of the sans with his own. It is also urged that the landlord was under a duty to show as to what kind of business was to be started in the shop from which eviction was sought and whether the landlord was competent to run it. Similarly, the son for whom the shop was needed should have been produced in Court and his qualifications to do so should have been examined by the Rent Controller. In the same context, it has been said that the effort of the landlord in this case was to obtain the monetary benefits which are available in a commercial area by letting out the shop at higher rent and by obtaining the Pagri .

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we find that the landlord had led evidence to show that he had a number of sons who were engaged in improvised means of earning livelihood. For example Javed was working as an employee at a shop, Khalid was running a khokha on Tehbazari and Abid was without any work at all. The learned Judge to the High Court concluded that- "even the witnesses produced by the respondent admitted that the appellant was not in occupation of any shop of his own."

6. The finding of fact recorded by the Rent Controller as sustained by the learned Judge in the High Court shows that it is based on evidence and on correct application of law to the facts of the case.

7. We do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed. Petition dismissed.