1991 PLP 2385 (MLD)

S. 13(3)(a)(ii)

Personal bona fide need

Not necessary for landlord to disclose that he was in possession or was owner of other shops also. Haji Mohibullah & Co. and others v. Khawaja Bahauddin 1990 S C M R 1070 ref. Syed Azhar Ali Shah Bokhari for Petitioner. Abdul Wahid Chaudhry for Respondent No.

1. Date of hearing: 6th May, 1991. This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, arises out of an application for eviction filed by respondent No.1 against the petitioner with respect to two shops in his possession as a tenant. The eviction was sought on various grounds, inter alia that the shops were required by the petitioner for his own user' This plea found favour with the learned Rent Controller, who passed an order of ejectment against the petitioner on 16th July, 1990, which was maintained in appeal by the Additional District Judge, Faisalabad, on 18th December, 1990.

2. Syed Azhar Ali Shah Bokhari, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there is evidence on the record to show that during the pendency of the ejectment petition before the Rent Controller, two shops in the same building had fallen vacant but were. not occupied by respondent No.1, which proves that he does not require the shops in question for his own use. The learned counsel has relied upon Mst. Ashraf Alia v. Dr. Asif Majeed 1991 C L C 53 to contend that if the landlord obtains possession of some tenements in same urban area, he is precluded from having any other shop vacant for his own use. The learned counsel also cited Habib-ur-Rehman v. Faqir Muhammad P L D 1983 Lah.

425. He further argued that as the landlord had not disclosed in the ejectment petition that he was occupying other premises also, the need cannot be said to be bona fide.

3. Mr. Abdul Wahid Chaudhary Advocate, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, on the other hand, defended the impugned orders and has argued that only one shop in the same building had fallen vacant during the pendency of the ejectment petition, but it was not suitable for the need of the landlord. Learned counsel emphasised that it is the prerogative of the landlord to select any shop for his business. Reliance is placed on Sabu Mal v. Kika Ram alias Heman Das 1973 S C M R 185.

4. There is no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Although it is correct and was admitted by the landlord while appearing as P.W.5 that a shop in the same building was twice vacated by the tenants of that shop during the pendency of the present ejectment petition, but the landlord while appearing as his own witness explained that the two shops in possession of the petitioner were more suitable for his needs as they are adjacent and contiguous to house in which he was living. He further deposed that the other shop was not suitable for his needs. That being so, no exception can be taken to the concurrent findings recorded by the Tribunals below holding that the shops in question are required by, the respondent/landlord. Reliance of the learned counsel for the petitioner on Mst. Ashraf Alia v. Dr. Asif Majeed 1991 C L C JJ is of no avail because in the cited case there was no evidence to show the shop with regard to which the ejectment petition has been filed was more suitable than the one, which was lying vacant.

5. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the landlord in his ejectment petition had not disclosed that he was in possession or was owner of other shops also, the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Haji Mohibullah & Co. and others v. Khawaja Bahauddin 1990 S C M R 1070 has held that it is not necessary to make any such disclosure in the ejectment petition. Resultantly, this petition fails and is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. H.B.T./M-3056/L Petition dismissed.