1990 PLP 992 (SCMR)

Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 22nd October, 1989. S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.‑‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 22‑5‑1989, whereby F.A.O. of the petitioners against the order of the Rent Controller, Rawalpindi dated 29‑11‑1988, was dismissed. Mohammad Amir respondent filed an ejectment petition under section 17 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 against the petitioners from the shop in dispute, in the Court of the learned Rent Controller, Rawalpindi, on the grounds of default in payment of rent subletting the shop in dispute to Mansabdar petitioner No. 2; demolition of the shop in dispute and its reconstruction in accordance with the approved plan and for personal requirement of the shop in dispute. The petitioners denied the allegations in the ejectment petition and contested the same. The learned Rent Controller on the pleadings of the parties framed contesting issues and after recording the evidence adduced by the parties accepted the ejectment petition only on the ground that the shop in question was required by respondent owner for its demolition and reconstruction for his personal use. The learned Rent Controller vide his order dated 29‑11‑1988 directed the petitioners to vacate and hand over possession of the shop in dispute to respondent within 90 days after passing this order. The petitioners' appeal against this order before the High Court was dismissed vide order dated 22‑5‑1989 and they were. directed to vacate and surrender the possession subject to payment of agreed rent of the shop in dispute to the respondent within two months. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. The main point argued before us was that the learned Single Judge of the High Court has left undecided the question of bona fide need of the disputed shop by the applicant/ respondent. We have gone through the judgment with the help of the learned counsel for petitioners and find that the only material point for decision which was urged was the question whether the owner required a demolition and reconstruction of the shop in dispute. The petitioners are admittedly in possession of a room and a verandah and a similar accommodation is in occupation of a contiguous tenant namely; Muhammad Rarque. As the roof of the room in possession of Muhammad Rafique has fallen down, we find that the bona fide need of the respondent of the property in dispute is dealt with by the learned High Court in the following words:‑‑ "At the time of filing of the ejectment application and also the statement made by him before the Rent Controller, he was about to retire from school service but has since then retired. His case is that the property Nos.212/H, 212/1 shall be demolished by him and in its place, new construction as indicated in plan Ex. Pl shall be raised‑ 1t was admitted that property in possession of Khawaja Corporation (212/G) is in good shape and shall neither be dismantled nor reconstructed." In view of the above narration it is now quite clear that the property in possession of the petitioners alongwith the one in possession of Muhammad Rafique really require dismantling and reconstruction due to its dilapidated condition being the roof from part of it had already fallen down. This question of fact has thoroughly been discussed and considered by the learned High Court in its impugned judgment which needs no interference by this Court. The petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed. A.A./N‑214/S Petition dismissed.