1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-Respondent No. 1, Sheikh Mazhar-ul-Haque, is a Senior Officer in the Telephone & Telegraph Department. It appears that sometime ago his service were terminated.
2. During this period he made an application for eviction of the petitioner. Abdul Karim, from a shop situated in Shah Alam Market, Lahore. The ground on which the eviction was sought was that the shop was needed for himself and for the use of his male children This application was filed in 1972.
3. Lengthy proceedings ensued and the case was also once remanded by the Additional District Judge. In the meantime, respondent No. 1 was re-instated in service and his sons had also taken other shops on rent. The question, therefore, was whether in these circumstances, Respondent No. 1 was still entitled to obtain ejectment of the tenant. This question has been dealt with at some length by the High Court and the relevant discussion may be usefully reproduced below :-- "Now, even if it is assumed that the respondent's own need has disappear--ed due to his rejoining the Telephone Department, it will make little difference. As indicated at the outset, the respondent bad sought eviction of the petitioner on the plea that he and his male children, i. e. Two sons, wanted to use the shop held by the petitioner. Admittedly, his sons are, in these days, doing business in rented shops. The eject. Mean proceedings giving rise to this constitutional petition were initiated as for back as in 1972 but they have not yielded the desired result to the respondent as yet although a period of nine years has since lapsed.
4. It seems that in view of the inordinate delay which had occurred in the finalization of ejectment proceedings, the respondent's sons were constrained to go in for rented premises because, for obvious reasons, one cannot sit idle for years together especially in the present age when the cost of living has gone very high. The case law is, by now well settled on the point that if a landlord seeks ejectment of his tenant from any premises belonging to him on the ground of personal need, h cannot be non-suited for the reason that he is already in possession of premises not owned by him. This proposition would also hold A good in the case in which the landlord seeks possession of his report with a view to accommodating his male children who are occupying property not owned by them or by the landlord. In the circumstances the respondent's case is not adversely affected by the occupation o rented shops by his sons."
5. After hearing Malik Muhammad Qayyum, Advocate, at some length, who has criticized the above approach and the reasoning of the learned Judge in the High Court, we are of the opinion that the view expressed above by the learned Judge is correct. In these circumstances no interference in his order B is, therefore, required.
6. This petition must fail and is dismissed hereby.
7. However, the petitioner is given one month's time to vacate the premises He has undertaken to do so voluntarily and will create no obstacle in the regard. He shall also continue to pay the monthly rent.