NASIR UD DIN vs MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE

1. MUHAMMAD GUL, J. -This leave petition is from the High Court's order dated 1-7-19715 in S. A. O. 344 of 1974 arising out of proceedings for ejectment initiated by respondent against the petitioner in respect of residential premises 139-A, Gulberg Colony, Lyallpur.

2. The respondent sought the petitioner's ejectment on the ground of his bona fide personal requirement on the allegation that he was presently occupying a Government quarter but had since received notice from his Department to vacate it and further that he was facing some difficulty in sending his infant daughter to a kindergarten school at a distance of some three miles from the Government quarter he is presently occupying. The petitionerresisted application on the ground that it was mala fide in that respondent is seeking petitioner's ejectment to let the premises on higher rent.

3. On the evidence produced by the parties which included copies of office memorandum and notices issued to the respondent for the vacation of Government quarter in his occupation, the learned Rent Controller accepted the respondent's version and ordered the petitioner's ejectment.

4. On appeal by the petitioner that order was reversed by the learned Additional District Judge who took the view that the alleged requirement of the respondent was not bona fide and that it was not difficult for him to procure notices to issue to him by his Department to quit the Government accommodation he was presently occupying so as to bolster up his case against the petitioner.

5. The learned Single Judge in the High Court on the other hand agreed with the conclusion reached by the Rent Controller and took the view that the finding of the learned Additional District Judge was based not on any concrete evidence but on his personal opinion resting on speculation.

6. We have heard the petitioner's learned counsel and have no reason to differ from the conclusion reached in the High Court. It was submitted by Mr. Jari Ullah Khan learned counsel for the petitioner that according to the evidence produced, the respondent had increased the monthly rent by Rs. 10 after he himself received the first notice to quit Government accommodation and that the petitioner's ejectment was sought for extracting still higher rent. The short answer to the argument is that if the respondent does not occupy the premises in dispute after the same is vacated by the petitioner, latter can under the law apply for restoration of his possession and move for the prosecution of the respondent.

7. Accordingly the petition is dismissed. The petitioner shall vacate the premises within three months from to day.