' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---On 9-5-2000 Mushtaq Ahmad predecessorin-interest of the respondent filed an application for ejectment of the appellant from a shop located in Lahore Urban Area. The ejectment was sought on the ground that the shop is required for personal use of his son and that the appellant has failed to pay rent with statutory increase. During the pendency of the said application the said Mushtaq Ahmad died and respondents were brought on record as L.Rs, The appellant filed a reply denying the said allegation. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. The ejectment petition was accepted by the learned Rent Controller on 9-5-2006 who found in favour of the respondents on both the said issues. The appellant filed a first appeal which was decided by a learned Additional District Judge vide order dated 22-5-2007 and finding on the question of default was reversed but the finding on the issue of personal requirement was upheld. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that it stood proved rather admitted on record that Fiaz Mushtaq respondent was doing his business in rented shop in the absence of any explanation that it was not sufficient for his need, the impugned findings are against law.
3. I have gone through the certified copies of the record which has been appended with this S.A.O.
By the learned counsel with his assistance.
4. It is true that respondent No,1 while appearing as A.W. 1 admitted that he is doing business in a rented shop but nothing turns on the same. The reason being that for the purpose of section 13(3)
(a) (ii) (b) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 a landlord is required to render the said explanation only regarding a building which is in his possession and also is owned by him.
There is no obligation on him to explain the possession of a rented shop. The matter has been settled by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Abdul Aziz and another v.
Muhammad Ibrahim (PLD 1977 Supreme Court 442). No other point has been urged. The S.A.O. Is dismissed in limine.