KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAH, J.-M. Jamil Ahmad through his (mother) guardian, Mrs. Parveen Anwar Afiridi filed an application under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance VI of 1959, for eviction of the petitioner tenant from the property in dispute on the ground of personal requirement for his own residence and causing damage to the property aforesaid.. The petition was accepted on the first ground by the learned Rent Controller who by his order directed eviction of the tenant.
2. The tenant filed an appeal but without any success as the same was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 3-5-1979 who found the second ground also against him.
3. A second appeal of the tenant being S. A. O. No. 345/79 also met the same fate and was dismissed by the High Court on 27-9-1980.
4. The tenant has now come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the same to this Court.
5. We have heard the learned counsel at length but we must say that the matter is concluded by a finding of fact that M. Jamil Ahmad owner of the property (who at the time of the institution of the case was minor but is now stated to be of 21 years of age) requires the property in dispute in good faith for his own personal residence. It may be mentioned that the property in dispute is only an Annexe which is the only residential house owned by him. He is son of Mr. Nazir Ahmad and his mother after the death of her aforesaid husband has married Mr. Anwar Afiridi with whom she is living in the main bungalow. The minor, however, required the Annexe aforesaid for his separate residence and his mother also wanted to put him up at that place so that he has an independent residence. In the very nature of things a the requirements aforesaid when examined in the overall context and circumstances of the case seem to be quite genuine and in good faith particularly when the boy wants to live separately from his step-father.
6. When confronted with this situation Mr. S. M. Zafar and Malik Muhammad Qayyum, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the need and the requirement of the landlord was not genuine inasmuch as there was accommodation sufficient in the main bungalow where the mother was residing with her present husband. The contention has no merit. The main bungalow does not belong to the landlord and obviously he cannot be compelled to live in the house of another in the overall context above mentioned. The personal requirement was notified to the tenant as far back as 7-2-1975 vide notice Exh. A. W. 2/5 much prior to the institution of the case and cannot thus be considered to be an afterthought. Learned counsel took us through the relevant evidence and the judgments of the Courts below. However, it may be pointed out that we find no ground to differ from the views of the Courts below on the subject in hand.
7. As we have maintained the justification for eviction of the tenant/ petitioner on the ground of personal requirement of the landlord we need not go into the matter of damage to the property as the ground earlier dealt with is sufficient for the purpose of the present order.
8. The result is that this petition has no merit and is rejected hereby. In the end the learned counsel prayed for time to arrange for vacation of the property. Two months time is granted on the condition that the tenant petitioner should pay the rent regularly and should voluntarily surrender the property to the landlord by or on the last day of the two months. Learned counsel for the tenant petitioner has agreed to these conditions.