1994 CLC 517 (PLP)

S.M. Rashid for Respondent No.3. Date of hearing: 7th November, 1992. This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, arises out of an application under section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, filed by Khair Muhammad, seeking eviction of respondent No.3 from the shop situate in Mandi Bahaud Din, Tehsil Phalia District Gujrat, on various grounds, inter alia, that he required the shop for the use of his son Fakhar Alain. The application was dismissed by the Rent Controller on 13‑4‑1986, who found all the issues against the petitioner landlord. The judgment of the learned Rent Controller was affirmed by the Additional District Judge, Gujrat on 14‑12‑1988, hence this petition. 2. Mr. Abdul Wahid, Advocate learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the judgment of the learned Addl. District Judge, runs counter to the law laid down by superior Courts, that it, is the prerogative of the landlord to select any of his shop for his own personal use. He argued that the mere fact that the petitioner owns many other shops, is not a ground for dismissal of the ejectment petition. He further argued that the shop in question is most suitable for the need of the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel for the contesting respondent has brought to the notice of this Court that Fakhar Alam for whose use the petitioner filed the ejectment petition, himself filed two other applications in which he sought eviction of the tenants on the ground that he required those shops for his own use and ejectment orders were passed in those cases. This development took place during the pendency of the appeal before the Addl. District Judge. However, neither any document nor this facts was brought on record before the learned Addl. District Judge. 4. After hearing the parties, it has become evident that the impugned judgment of the learned Addl. District Judge is not sustainable. He has proceeded to non suit the petitioner merely on the ground that a particular shop was more suitable for his need. 5. Faced with this situation, the learned counsel for the respondent states that he has no objection if the appeal is remanded to the Additional District Judge for decision afresh with the permission to the parties to produce further evidence in support of their respective contentions. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also no objection to this arrangement. Accordingly this petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 14‑12‑1988 of the Additional District Judge is declared to be without any lawful authority and of no legal effect, with the result the appeal filed by the petitioner shall be deemed pending and shall be decided afresh after allowing the parties to produce additional evidence. There shall be no order as to costs. H.B.T./K‑60/L Case remanded.