' This is a constitutional petition which calls in question the judgment of the Rent Controller, Shujabad, dated 8th December, 1981 and that of an Additional District Judge of Multan ordering the eviction of the petitioner from the disputed shop in Shujabad.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner has made the following submissions :-
(1) That the petitioner's suit for permanent injunction to restrain Fateh Muhammad, respondent, from dispossessing him from the disputed Shop without recourse to law and the respondent's suit for eviction were illegally consolidated by the learned Rent Controller and that the Rent Controller passed a common judgment in both the cases, which he could not do,. Which has vitiated the trial.
(2) Tbat the respondent/landlord was not serious in claiming eviction, as in his evidence he stated : {{URDU TEXT}}
3. As regards the first submission, even if it be assumed that the learned Rent Controller consolidated the petitioner's suit with the respondent's eviction application and after framing consolidated issues decided! Both the cases, it does not affect the position, as the Rent Controller has! The powers of Civil Judge, Its Class also. Even assuming that there is any technical defect, the same cannot ensure for the benefit of the petitioner, as the judgment is a consolidated judgment and issue No, 2 has been decided after taking into consideration all the evidence. The petitioner himself having agreed to the consolidation, cannot be allowed to object to the same now in constitutional jurisdiction. The submission,' therefore, has no basis and is rejected.
4. As regards the second submission, the statement made by Fateh Muhammad, respondent, as quoted above, was made in answer to a hypothetical question which was put to him in cross- examination. The total evidence recorded clearly shows that the respondent requires the shop bona fide for his own business. -In these circumstances, this submission has no weight and is rejected.
5. Both the lower Courts, after a proper appraisal of the case and the evidence on the record; have come to concurrent finding that the disputed shop is bona fide required by the respondent for his personal use and I see no reason to -differ from that finding.
6. For the foregoing reasons, there being no merit in this petition the same is dismissed in limine. On the principle of Nazir Ahmed's case, the petitioner is given two months' time to vacate the property in dispute, subject to his not being a defaulter and continuous payment of rent for this extended period.
NLR 1982 SC 14