1. ' SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J.--- This is appeal under section 24 of the Cantopments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 against the order passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Cantonment dated 25-9-2006 whereby the ejectment petition was accepted.
2. ' The learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the record has been perused with their assistance.
3. ' Two shops adjacent to each other bearing No,141-E3 and 141-E4 situated in Bakar Manch. Dhok Syedan Rawalpindi Cantt. Had been rented out to the appellant, where he had been carrying on his business. One of the shop i,e, 141-E4 according to him was vacated by him keeping in view the wishes of the landlord in 2000 whereas 141-E3 was retained by him. Through the ejectment petition, his ejectment was sought from this shop on the ground of default in payment of rent and the requirement of shop for personal use and occupation. The case pleaded and sought to be proved by the respondent/landlord was that he was conducting business at some other place i,e, Poonch House, Adam Jee Road, in rented premises and wanted to start business in his own property and that shop already vacated by the appellant was not sufficient to cater for his needs, which was lying vacant since 2000. According to his learned counsel he wanted to start his business on vacation of shop by appellant in both the shops, which were adjacent to each other. Such an assertion of the respondent/landlord found favour with the learned Additional Rent Controller. The learned counsel has cited number of precedents including Muhammad Mubin v. Abdul Hakim and others 1986 SCMR 651, Ismail v. Mst. Sher Bano through her Legal Heirs 1988 SCMR 772, Mst. Saira Bai v. Syed Anisur Rahman 1989 SCMR 1366, Haji Mohibullah & Co. And others v. Khawaja Bahauddin 1990 SCMR 1070 and Gohar Rashid v. Fazal Hasan Mazhar PLD 1995 Lah. 469, to contend that the choice as to the suitability of the premises ultimately rests with the landlord. In view of the settled position of law, there can be no cavil that when a landlord himself is running his business at some rented premises he has every right to get the premises vacated for his own use and occupation.
4. The finding of the Rent Controller on this aspect hardly call for any interference.
5. ' According to the learned counsel the sole dependency of the appellant is the business which he is conducting, in the rented shop. Undoubtedly, for making alternative arrangement a reasonable time would be required. Keeping all aspects in view while dismissing the appeal, I consider it just and fair that six months time should be given to the appellant for winding up of his running business and making of some alternate arrangement. It is however, observed and clarified that during this period the appellant would continuously deposit the rent of the premises. No order as to costs.