PARVAIZ AKHTAR Versus MUHAMMAD AHSAN

ORDER

SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The petitioner is a tenant in a commercial premises formerly owned by Mst. Nazira, respondent No.3. respondents Nos.l and 2 are her sons. By a family arrangement she transferred 2/3rd share in the premises to her sons. Subsequently, all the three respondents filed a joint application for the eviction of the petitioner mainly on the ground that it was required by one of them namely, respondent No.l, for setting up a medical clinic. The application was dismissed by the' Rent Controller, Multan Cantonment. The respondents filed an appeal before the High Court. A learned Single Judge accepted the appeal and directed the ejectment of the petitioner. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.

2. In support of this petition it is contended that as the gift made by respondent No.3 in favour of respondents Nos.l and 2 was not approved by the Cantonment Board, it was invalid. It is difficult A to accept this contention for the reason that the validity or invalidity of the gift was a matter between the Cantonment Board and the respondents. The petitioner being an outsider had no locus standi to call in question its validity. It is then urged that under section 17(4)(b) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, a building of a commercial nature could be got vacated by a landlord if he required B it in good faith for his own use. In this case the premises in dispute was not required by all the three owners jointly but only by one of them; in the circumstances the ground for eviction set down by the said provision was not available to the respondents. This contention is also without any merit. By virtue of the Tamleek Nama respondent No.l too had become landlord with reference to the petitioner and we see no reason why one of the landlords cannot take advantage of the said provision particularly, when the other co‑sharers had joined him in seeking eviction of the tenant. To hold otherwise would mean that in cantonment areas where a rented premises is owned by a number of persons none of them can seek eviction of the tenant on the ground of personal need. We find it difficult to accept this proposition. It is then contended that the premises were not required bona fide by respondent No.l as he was an inexperienced doctor and was in Government service. This contention raises a question of fact. The i High Court has after appreciating the evidence led by the parties recorded a finding adverse to the petitioner. We are not persuaded that this finding suffers from any infirmity. The petition is dismissed.

11.B.A./P‑57/S Petition dismissed.

THE END