1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-This appeal through special leave of this Court is directed against judgment dated 26-9-1979 of the Lahore High Court, whereby a second appeal against order of appellants eviction from a building, on ground of personal requirement of the respondent, was dismissed.
2. The application for appellant's eviction filed by the respondent was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller. The first appeal filed by the landlord was allowed and the appellant was ordered to be evicted on ground of default in payment of rent and personal requirement. On second appeal by the tenant (appellant) in the High Court, the first appeal decision on the question of personal requirement of the landlord, was upheld. The ground of default in payment of rent was not established.
3. Leave to appeal was granted to consider the question whether in the circumstances of this case where the landlord who is a heart patient sought eviction of the appellant from the first floor of the building, will it be possible for him (landlord) to use it without further damage to his heart----as in that case he would have to climb up several stairs to reach the first floor. In other words whether the plea of landlord was bona fide. - The respondent's case was that he at the time of making the application was residing in Rajgarh near Chauburji, Lahore but he wanted to shift to the house in dispute in Royal Park, so that he is' able to get treatment for his heart condition from the Mayo Hospital which is nearer from Royal Park as compared to Rajgarh. Two learned Courts on consideration of the relevant facts and circumstances believed that the claim of the: landlord was bona fide. Learned counsel, however, contended that the circumstances noted in the leave granting order were not duly considered by the High Court. And further that if at all the nearness of the abode of the landlord to the Mayo Hospital was the deciding factor, even then the respondent/landlord was not acting bona fide in selecting the house in dispute in Royal Park and not seeking eviction of his tenant from a building in Anarkali, Lahore.
4. We have with the help of the learned counsel gone through the relevant material on record. The landlord satisfactorily explained why he had not sought the, eviction of any tenant from the building in Anarkali. The consideration was financial profit and gain vis-a-vis the income from the second building. He would lose about Rs. 70 a month as rent if he occupied the building in dispute but in the case of the second building in Anarkali, be would lose Rs. 400 per mensem. This, cannot be considered unsound reason for the selection, made by the landlord.
5. Regarding the heart condition of the landlord, there is no serious dispute that he suffers from heart ailment. It is also not disputed that Royal Park is nearer to Mayo Hospital as compared to Rajgarh and there is nothing on record to show that the landlord would not seek treatment from Mayo Hospital in case he resided in Royal Park. The only point remaining to be considered is the one noted in the leave granting order, namely, the climbing upstairs by a heart patient-whether, in the circumstances of this case, it will in the circumstances, be more injurious to him if he continue to reside in Rajgarh.
6. It is very difficult without medical evidence in this behalf to hazard an' opinion that the statement made by the landlord regarding comparative benefit that might accrue to him on account of nearness of Mayo Hospital to Royal Park is not correct. However, it is certain that keeping in view the transport problem now a days, in Lahore and congestion during certain hours of the day on the roads there, a heart patient would certainly feel more secure at least psychologically, if he is near the medical centre of repute. In this context, it was the duty of the appellant to bring on record some evidence to contradict the statement made by the landlord. In absence thereof, we do not find any justification to interfere with the concurrent findings of the two appellate Courts below regarding the bona fides of the landlord. That being so, this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
7. On the undertaking given from the appellant's side that the building in dispute shall be vacated voluntarily, without waiting for the execution proceed--ings, he is allowed two months time to vacate the same, subject to the further condition that he would observe the terms regarding payment of rent.