' This is a petition on behalf of a tenant against whom an ejectment application was filed on 16th May, 1978, by the landlord who admittedly is presently employed in Saudi Arabia. The dispute relates to a shop situate in Gandum Mandi, Sialkot and the application was filed on 16th May, 1978 on the ground of personal need. In defence the petitioner/tenant asserted that as the landlord was residing in Saudi Arabia, he obviously could not use the shop for his own purpose and did not require it for such purpose, and that the application was mala fide as earlier the landlord had been demanding an increase in rent from Rs, 260 to 450 p.m.
2. By order dated 28th May, 1978, the Rent Controller found the issue relating to personal need of the landlord in his favour and ordered the ejectment of the petitioner within a month of the return to Pakistan of the landlord. The petitioner's appeal before the appellate Court was dismissed by order dated 6th October, 1980, and it was ordered that he vacate the demise premises within four months. Hence this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention to the judgment of the Rent Controller in which whilst reproducing the statement of the attorney of the landlord it was noted that the landlord had other shops also. It was contended that in such circumstances the landlord was not entitled to seek eviction of the petitioner. A reference to the statement of this witness shows that he had clearly stated that he has got no other shop in the locality. Even otherwise it is conceded that it is not apparent from the record that the shops are in the occupation of the landlord himself nor was any such averment made in the written statement filed by the tenant. It is not deniable that it is for the landlord to choose which shop he wants to conduct his business in. The mere fact that he possesses other shops will not result in dismissal his application for ejectment of a tenant from one of such shops. His next contention was that the learned District Judge during the course of hearing of the appeal had recorded the statement of the landlord, who happened to be present in Sialkot on that day, to the effect that he was employed in Saudi Arabia and had come back on leave and was going back to Saudi Arabia and that the appeal may be heard before his departure and that after the decision of the appeal he would come back to Pakistan to start business in the shop, Learned counsel argued that the appellant was not allowed to cross-examine the landlord and in these circumstances learned District Judge ought not to have placed reliance on this statement in his impugned judgment. It is not denied by the tenant that the landlord is residing in Saudi Arabia and as such his statement is not in relation to a matter which is contentious. This contention, therefore, has no force. It was also contended by learned counsel that the plea of the tenant that the application was mala fide on the ground that earlier the landlord had been pressing the tenant for increase in rent was not attended to by the Courts below. In this context learned counsel relied on the statement of the petitioner as well as his two witnesses made before the Rent Controller.
Vague allegations to this effect were made and no particulars have been given and it is obvious that a plea of mala fide cannot be founded or allowed on such basis. It was lastly contended by learned counsel that the landlord was fully absorbed of his work in Saudi Arabia and that the law only allowed the eviction where rented premises was required by the landlord for his personal use and that in the present case the landlord has only shown his "desire" to come back to Pakistan to start business at his home town. The argument of the learned counsel is tenuous. The landlord has made a statement that he has every intention to come back to Pakistan and start his business here. In my view, it fulfils the requirement of law B in this regard. It has been stated by the landlord in his petition in very clear terms that he intends to start business in the demise premises. He is a person who has been residing abroad for 7 years in order to better his future prospects and it is but natural that he desires to come back to Pakistan and settle down here.
4. No other point was urged. I do not find any error of defect in the impugned orders of a nature warranting the interference of this Court in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction. The petition is, therefore, rejected in limine.