MUMTAZ HUSSAIN vs MUHAMMAD IQBAL

ORDER

1. ' ANWARUL HAQ, C. J.-This petition seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 21st of February, 1979, whereby the second appeal of the petitioner against an order of ejectment made against him by the learned Additional District Judge in first appeal has been dismissed.

2. ' The petitioner's ejectment was sought by the landlord on the grounds of default in the payment of rent and bona fide requirement for personal need. The learned Rent Controller dismissed the application by his order, dated the 30th of January, 1976. However, the findings of the Rent Controller on both the counts were reversed in first appeal by the learned Additional District Judge by his order, dated the 16th of December, 1976, and the petitioner's ejectment was ordered. These findings have been upheld by the High Court in second appeal.

3. ' Leave to appeal is sought on the following grounds :-

(a) That neither in the petition nor in the evidence led before the Rent Controller the necessary ingredients of bona fide requirement for personal need were'spelt out by the respondent, as it was not even alleged that the respondent was not occupying any other commercial premises in the same locality, or that he had not vacated any such premises after the commencement of the Ordinance in the same urban area ;

(b) That there was no evidence as to the alleged personal requirement, as the witnesses produced by the respondent had no personal knowledge of the circumstances of the respondent ; and

(c) That the discretion vesting in the Rent Controller should have been exercised in favour of the tenant in the peculiar circumstances of the case even though he was defaulter in the payment of rent from January, 1974 to February, 1975.

4. We regret we see no merit in these submissions. The landlord had clearly asserted that he needed the shop in dispute for his personal use as he was jobless and wanted to run his own business. The only allegation made on behalf of the petitioner was that the landlord had taken a shop on rent from the Corporation. Even if that was correct, this Court has held that in clause (b) of subsection

(3) (a) (ii) of section 13 of the Ordinance the reference to occupation of another such building is to a building owned by the landlord and not to rented accommodation. It is, therefore, clear that the conclusion reached by the learned Additional District Judge and upheld by the .High Court, were based on the material brought on the record, namely, that the respondent landlord was not occupying any other building belonging to him in the same area for his business and that he needed the shop for starting his own business. There is, therefore, no scope for our interference with this finding of fact.

5. ' The default in the payment of rent having been proved for 13 months, we do not see how it can be said that it was a fit case in which the discretion vesting in the Rent Controller under section 13 of the Ordinance should have been exercised in favour of the petitioner.

6. ' As a result, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner is allowed four months' time to deliver vacant possession, provided C he continues to deposit the monthly rent by or before the 15th of each succeeding month.