Haji Muhammad Hussain respondent is the transferee of shop No, 316 situated in Bahawalpur city as the highest bidder in an open auction held in 1961. Mian Abdur Rehm, an etc. the present appellants were admittedly in possession of the shop when it was purchased by the respondent.
The respondent duly complied with the provisions of section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. In the year 1968 when the period of six years during which the appellants enjoyed protection under the aforesaid Act expired the respondent applied for their ejectment on the grounds that he required the shop for his own use in good faith and that the present appellants had sublet the shop. The learned Rent Controller found the issue regarding subletting in favour of the tenants but ordered their eviction since he found the other issue in favour of the landlord.
2. They filed an appeal which was rejected by the learned District Judge, Bahawalpur on 20-11-1968.
Hence this second appeal.
3. The only point submitted before me is that the son and grandson of the petitioner have two shops in their possession in the same area. Reliance is placed on section 13 (3) (ii) (b) and it is argued that since a child and a grandson of the landlord is occupying in the same urban area two other shops he cannot ask for ejectment of the appellants.
4. Section 13 (3) (ii) (a) provides that a landlord may apply to the Rent Controller in this behalf if he requires a nonresidential building in good faith for his own use or for the use of any of his male children. Sub-clause (b) lays down a fetter on this power in so far as it makes it a precondition that the landlord or "his said child" is not occupying a building in the same area suitable for his needs at the time. The word "said" in the expression "said child" applies to a case where the landlord is asking for possession "for the use of any of his male children" as provided in the previous sub- clause. In the present case, the landlord is asking for possession of the shop because he claims A that he requires it in good faith for his own use. In such a case clause (b) would only require that he himself should not be occupying another building in the same area. The question of the occupation of a child would arise only if the eviction is sought for his benefit.
5. It was sought to be argued that the respondent is carrying on business with his son. This is a question of fact which I cannot go into. Nevertheless, I may add that the statement of Allah Ditta, P.
W. 3, clearly shows that the respondent is not in any way a shareholder with his son in his shop.
Khuda Bakhsh P. W. 2 has stated that the respondent does not do any work. Elahi Bakhsh P. W. 1 has similarly proved that the father and son are not on good terms and they do not work together.
6. There is therefore no force in this appeal which is dismissed.
7. It has been admitted that the landlord has been charging the appellants rent much in excess of that which he was authorised Hussain, J to do under the law, though it was by mutual agreement, wherefore it is not in the interest of justice to saddle the appellants with the costs of this appeal.