MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs MUHAMMAD YAQUB Etc.S

ORDER

MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.-By this petition leave is sought to appeal against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 23-11-1982 passed in Writ Petition No. 4564 of 1.982.

2. The property in dispute bearing No. 87/1/95 situated at Chowk Allama Iqbal, Sialkot City being evacuee property was transferred to one Muhammad Latif by the Settlement Department and the present petitioner was in occupation and possession of the same as a tenant The said Muhammad Latif, through sale-deed dated 16-6-80 sold western half portion of the shop to the respondent No. 1 on 20-7-1980. Respondent No. 1 filed ejectment petition before the Rent Controller for the half portion of the said shop on the ground of default in the payment of rent and requirement for personal need. Learned Rent Controller vide his order dated 9-2-1980 ordered ejectment of the petitioner. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by -the Additional District Judge on 26-9- 1982. He then filed a writ petition in the Lahore High Court which resulted in the impugned order dated 23-11-1982.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Munir A. Shaikh raised the first point regarding ejectment of a tenant under the law from part of a building contending that eviction of a tenant from part of a building cannot be sought under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. He submitted that the petitioner is tenant of the entire shop as a single unit and tenancy of the petitioner cannot, under the law, be divided and, therefore, partial vacation of the same cannot be allowed. He further contended that the bona fide requirement of the premises by the respondent as provided in sub---clause (a), part (ii) of subsection (3) of section 13(a) of the aforesaid Ordinance is to be proved simultaneously alongwith the proof that the landlord at the relevant time was neither in occupation of any such building and has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause as provided in same clauses (b) and (c) and, lastly that there was misreading of the evidence by the learned appellate Court which was pointed out by the petitioner in the writ petition but was not considered by the learned Judge.

4. We have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel in the light of the relevant provisions of law and hold that there is no merit in this petition. Learned counsel could not show any law on the point that a tenancy which consists of two parts; one part thereof cannot be got vacated by the landlord. For personal use. The property had already been identified sufficiently for the purpose of ejectment. The sale-deed by which the respondent had purchased it indicates the property to be the western portion which is divided by a wall from the other portion. As regards the misreading of evidence, we have gone through the evidence on record but found no such misreading of evidence as urged by the counsel. Thus, this petitionwithout merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.