1986 PLP 1811 (CLC)

Art. 9--West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S. 13 (3) (iii)--Constitutional jurisdiction--Sufficient cause--Landlord not proved to be occupying same shops doing business therein, before renting out to tenant--Vacation of shops by landlord with or without good cause not proved--Plea not taken before Tribunals below--Landlord not cross-examined on point--Provisions of S. 13(3)(iii) of Rent Restriction Ordinance, held, would not be attracted unless it was proved that landlord was occupying same shops for his personal use and was carrying on business therein before renting them out to tenant--Mere fact that shops were locked and begging for tenant could not be construed to be vacation without sufficient cause--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.

199. C. A. Rehman for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Nawaz for Respondent No.

1. Date of hearing: 2nd June, 1985. The petitioner in this case is a tenant of two shops belonging to respondent 1 from where his eviction has been ordered concurrently by the two Rent Tribunals below on the finding that the respondent landlord required it bona fide for 'his personal needs.

2. I held a pre-admission hearing in this case in order to obviate all chances of confusion and for the satisfaction of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as my own that the landlord was not in possession of any other show room in Gujranwala City. The landlord is present and he states on oath that should ever the tenant be able to prove that the landlord is running a show room of his own in the city of Gujranwala, he would even surrender in his favour the two shops for good. After listening to this firm stance of the respondent landlord, the learned counsel for the petitioner does not wish to press the plea that he is in possession of an independent show room in Ghanta Ghar or other locality of Gujranwala City.

3. It is obvious that the two Rent Tribunals have held concurrently that respondent requires the two shops for his personal bona fide need and the furniture manufacturing workshop at the back of the shops in dispute is another factor which has been construed in favour of the landlord for needing a show room for the sale of the goods manufactured by him. These concurrent findings of the Tribunals below on a question of fact are not shown to suffer from any serious error of approach or misdirection or for that matter misreading of evidence before them.

4. The next point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that these shops were rented out by the landlord to the present petitioner two years ago which was before the institution of the eviction proceedings and therefore, he should be required to show that he had not vacated these shops without sufficient cause. It is no where in the evidence that the respondent before renting out these shops to the present petitioner was personally occupying the same and doing any business therein and that he vacated these shops with or without good cause. As I understand the provisions of sub-clause (iii) of subsection (3) of section 13 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, in order to attract its rigours it was necessary for the petitioner to establish that the landlord was carrying on his business and occupying for his personal use the same shops which he rented out to the petitioner. Vacation is to be construed in a realistic sense of beneficial user by the landlord himself. The mere fact that a shop is lying locked and begging for a tenant would not be construed to be vacation of shop without sufficient cause. At any rate, this was not the case of the petitioner before the Tribunals below and the landlord had not been cross-examined on this aspect of the matter. It is too late in the day to raise this point for the first time in constitutional jurisdiction.

5. In view of what has been stated above, this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.