' This S. A.
0. Has arisen out of an ejectment petition filed by respondent No. 1 against the appellant and respondent No,
2. For their eviction from the shop in dispute, on the grounds of default, subletting by the appellant to respondent No, 2 and the landlord's bona fides personal need. The first two grounds were found by the Courts below against the respondent-landlord whereas his third contention regarding self-use reflected in Issue No, 3, was accepted.
' The validity of this finding alone requires determination in this S. A. O.
2. The landlord is a hakeem by profession and is running his matab in a rented shop. His case is that his son namely, Sajid Mahmood after his F. A. Examination, has been learning business in general merchandise at the shop of Allah Ditta and that the demised property is needed for running the merchandise business by his son. Allah Ditta appeared as P. W. 1 and Sajid Mahmood, entered the witness box as P. W.
3. The respondent also examined Kanwar Muhammad Ilyas as P. W.
2. Their evidence supports the repondant's version as disclosed above. While appearing as his own witness the respondent corroborated the contents of the ejectment petition.
3. In rebuttal, the appellant besides his own testimony relied on the statement of Haji Muhammad Sadiq, Muhammad Jamal, Tehseen Iqbal and Muhammad Ismail. The evidence of the last named witness is not relevant to the matter in issue. The appellant's defence as borne out from his evidence is that Sajid Mahmood is working at the matab of his father and does not require the shop in dispute in good faith for his personal use. However, his evidence in this respect was not believed by both the learned lower Courts.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The entire evidence has been read out to me by the learned counsel for the appellant. His submission was two-fold firstly that respondent's son was working at his matab, and secondly, shortly before the institution of the ejectment petition he got vacated another shop in Khatianwala Bazar in the same urban area which was leased out by him ; this shop could have been utilized by the respondent's son for running his business. It was urged that there is no evidence on the record to indicate that this shop was not suitable for his needs The learned counsel heavily relied on clause (c) of sub-clause (ii) of subsection (3) (a) of section 13 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance.
5. Whether not the shop is required bona fide by the respondent for the use of his son is primarily a question of fact, on which there is concurrent finding of the learned Courts below against the appellant. I have gone through the record to ascertain if this finding suffers from any misreading of evidence or non-reading of any material piece of evidence. My answer is in the negative. The only plea raised is the written statement by the appellant, to defeat the respondent's claim regarding his bona fide personal need was, that he wanted to increase the rent. But this plea has remained unproved. However, from examination of the trial Court's file, I do not find that there is much on the record to sustain any of the contentions of the appellant's learned counsel. His argument that the respondent's son is working with him is nullified by the trend of cross-examination to which respondent as well as his witnesses were subjected. A suggestion was put to them that the respondent alone worked at his shop.
6. As regards the submission that another shop was available to the respondent, it is evident from his statement that the shop in Khatianwala Bazar was got vacated by him from a tenant in March, 1973, and was again let out in early 1975. The ejectment petition against the appellant was instituted on 8th March, 1976 i,e, about one year after the leasing out of the said shop. It is correct that according to Sajid Mahmood this shop was leased out 6/7 months before the filing of the ejectment petition. But this part of the testimony of the respondent or for that matter Sajid Mahmood, does not militate against the bona fides of their claim. The shop was not with the respondent immediately before the commencement of proceedings against the appellant. It was necessary for him to have cross-examined the respondent and his son on this point. Without giving the respondent an opportunity to explain the circumstances under which his son did not occupy the shop in question, no adverse inference can be drawn against him. In any case, as held in Sabumal v. Kika Ram (1) {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) 1973 SCM R 185 {{FOOT NOTE}} if a landlord owns more than one commercial property in the same urban area, it is his prerogative, to chose any such property for his personal use. The case is not hit by clause (c) of sub-clause (ii) of subsection (3) (a) of section 13 as assure on behalf of the appellant.
7. The law as laid down in Abdul Majid and others v. Khalil Ahmad (1) is as follows :-- ..The High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a second appeal on the ground of an erroneous finding of fact, however gross and inexcusable the error may seem to be, unless there is an error in the procedure provided by law, which may possibly have produced an error or defect in the decision of the case on the merits."
' The learned counsel has failed to point out any error in the findings of the learned Rent Controller or that of the Appellate Authority.
8. For the reasons aforesaid, I do not find any merit in this S. A.
0. Which merits dismissal and I order accordingly. The costs shall be borne by the appellant. He shall hand over the vacant possession of the shop t respondent No, I within one month. {{FOOT NOTE}}