1991 PLP 1527 (SCMR)

S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the petitioner against the order of the Balochistan High Court, Quetta dated 22‑5‑1989, arising out of an eviction application filed by Dr. Mubeenul Haq Khan respondent No.1 against the petitioner from the disputed premises No. 7‑15/48, Toghi Road, Quetta, before the Rent Controller, on the grounds of personal bona fide requirement and subletting of the premises. The said application was contested by the petitioner and pro forma respondents Nos. 2 to 4. In their joint written‑statement they denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. On the application of the respondent No.1 about the existence of the lease‑deed Exh.A/14, dated 27‑8‑1974, the petitioner admitted the said relationship and thereafter filed amended written‑statement. On the pleadings of the parties the learned Rent Controller framed contesting issues and thereafter recording the evidence of the parties and vide his order dated 15‑3‑1989 accepted the eviction application and directed the petitioner and others to hand over the vacant possession of the disputed premises to the respondent No.1 within four months after passing the order. Against this order the petitioner filed appeal before the Balochistan High Court, at Quetta which was dismissed on 22‑5‑1989. However, the learned High Court directed the petitioner to hand over the vacant possession of the disputed premises to the respondent No.1 within six months. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the respondent No. 1 has failed to prove his bona fide requirement of the suit premises as he filed the application on the 2nd of August, 1986 prior to his shifting from Karachi to Quetta in March, 1987 and this by itself proves that the plea of personal use was not bona fide, as according to the learned counsel there is no explanation that how the need arose prior to his coming to Quetta. The answer to this question is available in a reported case "Fatal Azam and another v. Tariq Mahmood and another" P L D 1982 SC 218 whereby the landlord who went abroad cannot by itself was considered as showing lack of bona fide. In this petition the fact that how the respondent No.1 felt the need prior to his coming to Quetta, to be consioered as lack of bona fide need of the premises in dispute, is immaterial because it has been observed in a number of cases that landlord seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of personal requirement, is not expected to sit idle for the intervening period, till his case is decided by the Court wherein it is pending. There is no harm of his being away to anywhere in Pakistan or abroad in connection with a gainful occupation and his assertion of bona fide requirement on his part will not be affected on this very reason. After hearing the learned counsel and going through the relevant record, we have not been able to find any infirmity in the impugned judgment so as to hold that the finding of fact reached by the High Court could not have been rendered in its appellate jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to convince us in this regard. That being so we do not consider it a fit case for the grant of leave to appeal which is accordingly dismissed. A.A./A‑683/S Leave refused.