ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-This petition by Dr. Muhammad Rafiq is directed against judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, dated 27-7-1980, dismissing his writ petition in a rent matter.
2. The facts leading to the present petition, as stated before us, by the learned counsel for the parties are, briefly, that the respondent (No. 3/ land--lord) let out Bungalow No. 41-G, Main Gulberg, Lahore, to the petitioner in 1971 at a monthly rent of Rs. 1,600, half of it for occupation by the latter for residential purpose and the other half for use by him as a hospital. The rent was subsequently increased on two occasions, in 1973 and 1974, to Rs. 1,800 and Rs. 2,400 respectively. Later on 12th April 1977, the respondent--landlord filed an application for ejectment of the petitioner from the premises in question, inter alia on the grounds that it was needed by him for his personal use and also for the use of his son Amjad Hamid Dasti, who is at present a practising lawyer in Muzaffargarh, for setting up his practice at Lahore.
3. On the pleadings of the parties four issues were framed by the learned Rent Controller out of which the following 3 are relevant for this petition:-
(1) Whether the petition is mala fide and has been filed to enhance the monthly rent? O. P. R.
(2) Whether the petition is not maintainable in view of the preliminary objection No. 4 ? O. P. R.
(3) Whether the property in dispute is bona fide required by the petitioner (respondent No.3) for his and family personal use and occupation? O. P. R.
(4) Permission of the petitioner (respondent No. 3) ?
(5) If so, with what effect ? O. P. R.
(6) Relief.
Learned Rent Controller, after recording the evidence decided all the issues except Issue No. 2, against the respondent-landlord and dismissed the ejectment application. The landlord thereupon filed an appeal before the District Judge, Lahore, who vide, his order dated 30-6-1980, reversed the findings of the learned Rent Controller on Issues Nos. 1 and 3, and accepted the appeal and ordered eviction of the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed a writ petition which was dismissed by the High Court by an elaborate judgment date 27-7-1980.
4. The main contention urged before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner which required consideration was that the High Court as well as the first appellate Court failed to consider the fact that a building which was let-out for use as a hospital become a `Scheduled" building within the mean--ing of section 13 (3) (li) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, and could not have been ordered to be vacated either for personal use of the landlord or for any business other than a scheduled business. This was controverted by the learned respondent-caveator.
5. We have heard. The learned counsel for the parties at considerable. Length and gone through the evidence on the record as well as judgment of the Courts below. The evidence on the record shows that the landlord required a part of the building, which is at present being used as a hospital for the use of his son Mr. Amjad Hamid Dasti to set up his office for legal practice. Considering that that business is also a scheduled one, the said portion could, be got vacated for the purpose of setting up lawyer's office therein. Similarly, the other half portion of the bungalow, which is being used by the petitioner as his residence could be got vacated by the landlord if he required it for his own residence or that of his son.
For the foregoing reasons we do not consider this to be a fit case for grant of Leave. The petition is consequently dismissed.
6. However, considering that the premises in question is partly being used as a hospital, we allow four months time to the petitioner to make alternate arrangement subject to payment of the rent for this period. It may be mentioned that the petitioner has promised to vacate the premises in question after the expiry of four months time, peacefully, and hand over vacant possession of the same to the respondent-landlord.