1990 PLP 942 (SCMR)

Anwar Kamal, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Ahmad, Advocate‑on -Record for Respondents. , Date of hearing: 10th January, 1990. S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the petitioner against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court dated 13‑9‑1989, whereby the 1st appeal of the respondents against the order of the Rent Controller Peshawar Cantt. dated 30‑10‑1985. was accepted. The petitioner was the tenant of the disputed Shop No. 3/1 Fakhre Alan Road, Peshawar Cantt., owned by Faqir Hussain, predecessor‑in‑interest of the respondents. On the death of Faqir Hussain in March, 1977 the property in dispute devolved on the respondents being his heirs, who became the owners/landlords and the tenant petitioner attorned to them on payment of the existing rate of rent. Altaf Hussain respondent No.1 on his retirement from the Railway service with his co‑sharers felt the need of the disputed shop for their own business. In meanwhile the petitioner agreed to enhance the existing rent of Rs.2,500 per month to that of Rs.3,000 per month w.e.f. 1‑2‑1979 but the petitioner directed his Banker to make the payment at the old rate of Rs.2,500 per month. The respondents filed an eviction application before the Rent Controller, for ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of default in payment of the agreed rent and unauthorized additions/alterations in the structure of the disputed shop. The petitioner contested the eviction application and submitted written reply. On the pleadings of the parties the Rent Controller framed issue and after recording the evidence adduced by the parties, decided all the issues in favour of the petitioner and vide his order dated 30‑10‑1985 dismissed the said application of the respondents. The respondents challenged the said order in appeal before the Peshawar High Court. A learned Single Judge of the High Court who heard the appeal accepted the same, set aside the order dated 30‑10‑1985 of the Rent Controller and passed order for the eviction of the petitioner from the disputed premises vide order dated 13‑9‑1989. . After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length, we are satisfied that the finding arrived at by the learned Single Judge of the High Court is based on proper appreciation of all the material facts on record and suffers from no infirmity, legal or otherwise. Therefore, we find no merit in this petition for further consideration of this Court. Consequently, it is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. However, it is a matter of record that the petitioner is an old tenant in the demised premises from the year 1937. His business is obviously established there. The learned counsel for the petitioner says that lacs of rupees are due to his client from the customers and if he is dislodged presently, he will face hardship in collecting the amount. Both the learned counsel for the parties agreed that in order that the petitioner is able to search a new place for his business and also to arrange collection of the loan from the customers, be may be given four months period to remain in the disputed premises. We order accordingly. This is subject to the condition that the petitioner would, pay monthly rent each month regularly to the respondent. A.A./P‑125/S Order accordingly.