' ZUBDA-TUL-HUSSAIN, J.---The appellant Abdul Majeed, is a tenant under the respondent in a commercial premises, namely, a shop for the eviction of which the respondent brought an ejectment petition, on the ground of default in payment of rent by the petitioner and for personal need of the respondent. The ejectment petition after trial was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller, Sadiqabad, on 27-7-2006, whereas the appeal filed against its dismissal was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Sadiqabad, on 20-3-2007, and the petitioner-tenant was directed to hand over the vacant possession of the disputed shop to the respondent within a period of two months of the date of the order. The petitioner was, however, allowed an adjustment in the rent amount of Rs,25,000 paid by him in advance to the landlord.
2. The petitioner-tenant has been constrained to file the instant appeal because of this ejectment order. As the issue relating to default was not pressed before the learned lower appellate Court appeal has been contested before this Court only in relation to the personal requirements and bona fide of the respondent in that behalf. The relationship of landlord and tenant is not disputed between the parties but still the factum of ownership of the shop has a significant nexus to the issue in hand. The shop in dispute in fact is the ownership of the wife and daughter of the respondent which the respondent had rented out to the petitioner and in the context he became the landlord of the petitioner. The question of personal need in this case is not to be decided in ordinary circumstances of landlord ship but the petitioner in this case has raised a particular objection with reference to the ownership of the shop contending that in spite of the fact that the respondent is his landlord he cannot claim the ejectment of the premises for personal need because, according to the petitioner, the personal needs of the real owners i.e, either the wife or daughter of the respondent could be relevant for eviction of the petitioner on this score.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the status of the respondent in the given circumstances was at the most that of a landlord of a category authorized to collect the rent on behalf of his wife and the daughter and there being nothing on the record to show that the ejectment application had been filed by the respondent on behalf of his wife or daughter. He had no justification and entitlement to seek the ejectment on the pretext of his own personal requirements. The learned counsel has in this behalf primarily relied upon Mir Khalid Bashir v. Nazar Hussain and 2 others 2001 YLR 3106 and Nasrullah v. Mrs. Fatima Begum (1991 CLC 2018).
4. It is of course true and shall be very difficult to controvert the proposition that where the landlord is not himself the owner as well, the eviction of the tenant without reference to the needs of the real owners may not be sought for his personal requirements. It may, however, be noticed with concern that one of the owners of the property is the wife while the other is the daughter of the respondent.
It is the management as a landlord which the respondent is conducting on their behalf. Both the owners are womenfolk and as such are also dependent upon the respondent because of the close proximity of their relationship. If a non-owner landlord has to justify the personal requirements of the owners for vacation of the premises then at the same time if he can show that the eviction is needed for the benefit of the owners through the use of the premises by him then the ejectment petition cannot be thrown away simply on the grounds agitated by the learned counsel for the appellant.
5. As already stated, in the present case one of the owners is the wife while the other is the daughter of the petitioner. The use of the premises by the respondent for the benefit of his wife and daughter can justify the bona fide character of the demand. The contention of the appellant that the need of the owners was not mentioned in the ejectment petition cannot be of any avail for him because in the given situation and circumstances a need of the landlord/respondent was the need of his family i.e, his wife and daughter and nexus of the needs of the owners with the use of the shop of their benefit could not be extinguished simply because this detail was missing from the contents of the petition. The learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon Electro Service Industries v. Hamdoon Subhani (1995 SCMR 1811), Ch. Shahbaz Babar v. Mrs, Rehmana Mirza (2006 SCMR 1032) and Nasim Ahmed Khan v. Additional District Judge, Lahore and 4 others (PLD 2006 Lahore 774), the ratio whereof especially that of the last one is aptly applicable to the facts of the present case.
6. I am, therefore, of the view the respondent/landlord had not established his bona fide requirements the shop but also was entitled to get the same vacated for the commonality of his personal needs and the needs of his family members who are real owners of the property.
Accordingly, I find no merit in this appeal and while maintaining the judgment of the learned lower appellate Court i.e, the learned Additional District Judge, Sadiqabad, dismiss this appeal with costs.