DILSHAD MUHAMMAD vs Mst. ZUBAIDA BEGUM

ORDER

1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-The petitioner is a tenant under .The respondent in respect of Shop No. 148/1, situate to Main Bazar, Gujjar Khan, District Rawalpindi. The respondent-landlady prayed for the ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of personal need and damage to the property. This application was resisted by the p-.dtion2r and on the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed :-

(1) Whether the respondent has damaged the property so as to diminish its value?

(2) Whether the property in dispute is required in good faith by the applicant for her personal use?

(3) Relief.

2. Issue No. 1 was found against the landlady while Issue No. 2 was decided against the petitioner herein. Consequently, the learned Rent Controller vide his order dated 7-6-1979 ordered the ejectment of the petitioner from the shop in dispute.

3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge,. Rawalpindi; which was dismissed vide judgment dated 26-7-1979. The petitioner, then, filed a second appeal in the Lahore High Court (S. A. O. No 576/79) which was admitted to bearing but finally dismissed by an elaborate order passed on 15-3-1980. Hence this petition.

4. Ch. Qadir Bakhsh, in support of this petition, has submitted that the respondent-landlady has not been able to prove that she needed the shop in dispute in good faith for her personal requirement.

5. In her application, she stated that she needed the shop in question for her personal use but in her statement before the Court she took a different stand, namely, that she required the shop for the use of her son, who was admittedly pursuing his business in Karachi and further he was also not examined "although the eviction of the petitioner was being sought for his benefit". In these circumstances, it was submitted that the finding of the Courts below on Issue No. 2 was erroneous.

6. We observe that this very point was raised in the Courts below and has been adequately dealt with in the judgment passed by the said Courts, especially by the High Court. We are in agreement with the view taken by the learned Judge in the High Court that the petitioner was fully aware of the stand of the respondent-landlady on this point and was not taken by surprise at the evidence stage. We also agree with the High Court that the non-appearance of the son of the landlady was not fatal to the claim of the respondent and that the landlady had in the circumstances amply established that she required the shop in good faith for the use and occupation of her son.

7. We, therefore, find no ground for interference with the concurrent findings of all the Courts below that the petitioner is liable to be ejected from the shop in dispute and the orders passed in this respect are quite legal and proper.

8. Finally, Ch. Qadir Bakhsh, submitted that the petitioner is running business in the shop for the last ten years and will be put to great inconvenience if he is ejected immediately therefrom. In these circumstances, we allow the petitioner four months' time to put the respondent-landlady in possession of the shop, provided he continues to pay the monthly rent in accordance with law.