1. ' FAISAL ARAB, J.---The petitioner is tenant of respondents Nos.1 and 2 in a shop bearing C.S. No,A/741 situated at Grass Market Hyderabad. The respondents Nos.1 and 2 filed eviction application against the petitioner on the ground that the premises in question is required for the personal need of respondent No,2, who is a doctor, to run his clinic. The eviction was ordered by the Rent Controller and the Appeal of the petitioner failed. Against concurrent findings of the Courts below the petitioner has filed the present petition.
2. ' It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it has come on record that out of the two shops one shop is in possession of respondents and lying vacant but both the Courts below have failed to take into consideration this fact and allowed eviction. In support of his contention that when a shop is already in occupation of the landlord then eviction cannot be granted for another shop unless it is established that the vacant shop is not suitable for the requirement of the landlord or it is established that it is insufficient for the needs of the landlord. In support of his contentions he relied upon the cases of Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali v. Chief Settlement Commissioner (PLD 1973 SC 236), Syed Farzan Rizvi v. Khalilur Rehman (1981 CLC 1223), Sh. Ejaz Ahmed v. Muhammad Abdul Latif (1984 CLC 2596), Muhammad Aslam v. Muhammad Aslam Zuberi 1986 CLC 686, Ghulam Nabi v.
3. Muhammad Sachal 1986 CLC 2858, Zohra Bibi v. Additional District Judge (1990 SCMR 1243), Ghulam Haider v. Abdul Ghaffar (1992 SCMR 1303), Muhammad Yusuf v. Mst. Quresha Begum (PLD 1993 Karachi 502), Latif Ahmad v. Mst. Farrukh Sultana (1996 SCMR 1233), Mst. Gul Nisa v.
4. Muhammad Arif (1996 SCMR 1239), Government of the Punjab, through Secretary Food Lahore and another v. Messrs Habib Bank Ltd. 2000 SCMR 247, Haji Ahmad v. Muhammad Ilyas (2001 MLD 1225), Saleemuddin v. Mst. Bibi Jan (2001 MLD 1176), Mst. Khadija Begum v. Mst. Yasmeen (PLD 2001 SC 355), Allies Book Corporation through L.Rs, v. Sultan Ahmad and others (2006 SCMR 152), Mst. Shirin Bai v. Famous Art Printers (Pvt.) Ltd. (2006 SCMR 117), Sheikh Muhammad Sadiq v. Elahi Bakhsh (2006 SCMR 12), Javed Khalique v. Muhammad Irfan (2008 SCMR 28), Raja Riaz v. Chairman Pakistan Space and Upper Atmosphere Research Commission Karachi (2008 SCMR 402), Muhammad Hafeez v. District Judge Karachi (2008 SCMR 398) and Sarwar Ali v. IInd Additional District and Sessions Judge Karachi East and others 2010 YLR 815. He also argued that where there is misreading and non-reading of evidence then this Court can interfere in its Constitutional jurisdiction.
5. After going through the eviction application particularly paragraphs 1 to 3 it is evident that out of two shops one shop was said to be in use of respondent No,1 and the premises in question was required for the personal bona fide use of respondent No,2. In the cross-examination of the petitioner himself it has come on record that the shop which was already in possession of respondent No,1 was got vacated for his personal use and not for respondent No,2 in a rent proceedings. The petitioner has himself admitted that "Dr. Azam got the case premises vacated on the personal bona fide use of his brother namely Pervaiz Ahmed." Having admitted this fact that the other premises was got vacated in the rent proceedings for the use of respondent No,1 i,e, Pervaiz Ahmed only and the present eviction application was filed for the use of respondent No,2 Dr. Muhammad Azam, the other co-owner of the premises in question, therefore, the case-law cited by the petitioner is of no help to him as it has been adequately explained in the evidence that the other premises is in use of respondent No,1 whereas the shop in possession of the petitioner is required for respondent No,2.
6. ' The case-law cited by the petitioner's counsel is of no application to this case as need for the premises in question has been adequately explained by the respondents Nos.1 and 2 in paragraphs 1 to 3 of the eviction application.
7. ' In the circumstances no case for interference with the concurrent findings of the Courts below is made out. Hence this petition is dismissed in limine along with the listed application.
8. ' At this stage learned counsel for the petitioner states that since it is a commercial premises, therefore, some reasonable time may be granted to the petitioners to vacate the same.
9. ' At the request of learned counsel the petitioner is granted four (4) months time to vacate the premises in question and handover its vacant physical possession to the respondents but subject to deposit of rent with the Rent Controller. Upon expiry of four months time from today, writ of possession shall be issued by the Executing Court without notice and upon resistance police aid shall also be provided.