ABDUL HAMID Versus GHULAM RASUL

ORDER

SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.- -This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment and order dated 4-4-87 of the Lahore High Court whereby, in constitutional jurisdiction, it reversed the order of the Additional District Judge, Lahore and restored the order of ejectment made by the Rent Controller against the petitioner.

2. The dispute between the parties relates to a shop, originally a garage, situate in Krishna Galli, Gowalmandi, Lahore. It is owned by respondent No.1 and is on lease with the petitioner who is a vegetable-seller. On 10-6-82 respondent No. l filed an application before the Rent Controller against the petitioner for his ejectment on the ground that he needed the shop for the use of his son who wanted to set up his law office therein. The learned Rent Controller accepted the application and directed the ejectment of the petitioner. From the order of the Rent Controller the petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge. The learned Additional District Judge reappraised the evidence and came to the conclusion that the plea of personal need taken by respondent No.1 was not genuine. Consequently, he accepted the appeal and set aside the order of ejectment. Respondent No.1 invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to call in question the legality of the order of Additional District Judge. A learned Single Judge in the High Court found that the Additional District Judge had misread the record and for that reason his finding on the plea of personal need stood vitiated. He accepted the constitutional petition, set aside the order of the learned Additional District Judge and restored that of the learned Rent Controller.

3. While recording his finding on the plea of personal need the learned Additional District Judge referred to the statement made by the son of respondent No.1 to the effect that he had not seen the shop from inside and therefore he was not aware of its condition. The learned Additional District Judge observed that a person who had not seen the shop from inside could not be in a position to say that it was suitable for his requirements. He also noticed that the rent of the shop was Rs.7 per month and thought that it was too low for the locality in which the shop was situated. He therefore took the view that the application for eviction was possibly motivated by the desire to get the rent increased.

4. The learned Single Judge in the High Court was right in holding that the learned Additional District Judge had misread the record and misdirected himself in holding that the bona fide of the plea had not been proved. The son of respondent No.1 had stated that he had seen the shop. He was also able to give its exact area. Apparently, that part of the statement upon which the learned Additional District Judge relied had been taken out of the context. The observation that the application for eviction had been filed with the motive to obtain an increase in the rent was entirely conjectural. It was not disputed that the son of respondent No.1 was a practising lawyer and that he had no premises in his possession for running his office. In the circumstances the learned Single Judge was right C in interfering with the order of the learned Additional District Judge.

This petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed.

M.I. /A-143/S Petition dismissed.