' M. S. H. QURAISHI, J.-The petitioner, a tenant, is aggrieved by the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing his writ petition against an order of ejectment passed by the appellate Court.
2. The landlord had sought the petitioner's ejectment from the rented premises on the ground of bona fide personal need. The petitioner's defence was that the premises having been rented in 1973 for a period of 20 years and Rs, 90,000. Having been paid as security, the ejectment application was premature and not maintainable and that even otherwise it was mala fide inasmuch as it had been filed with an eye to enhancement of the rent. The Controller, apart from framing an issue on the question of the landlord's requirement in good faith (issue No, 1), framed two other issues in the light of the petitioner's pleas, that is, whether the application was premature (issue No, 2) and whether it had been filed with mala fide intentions (issue No, 3). He found issue No, 2 in favour of the landlord but as he held against him on the other two issues, he rejected the application. In the landlord's appeal, however, the findings on issues 1 and 3 were reversed and an order of rejectment was passed against the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the order by filing a writ petition. The recital of the facts in his judgment dated 4-5-1983 shows that the learned Judge of the High Court was under the impression that the Rent Controller, too, had ordered the ejectment but he corrected the error on 21-5-1983 on an application moved by the landlord and in the presence of the petitioner.
3. Mr. A. K. Brohi appearing for the petitioner contends that the High Court was wrong in holding that both the Rent Controller and the appellate Court had come to a concurrent finding on issue No, 2 whereas the appellate Court had in fact not adverted to that issue, observing that the same had not been assailed by the petitioner. This, according to learned counsel, it did on a misunderstanding of the law that neither appeal nor cross-objections having been filed by the petitioner, he could not agitate the finding on that issue. The appellate Court had observed : "Issue No, 2 having been held in favour of the appellant (respondent No, 1) and its findings have not been assailed by the respondent (petitioner), therefore, it is not in controversy before this Court.
Nevertheless, later in its judgment, it had adverted to the issue and had concurred in the Controller's finding holding that the evidence produced by the petitioner was "highly unbelievable".
The High Court was, therefore, not in any error in holding that both the authorities below had not accepted the petitioner's plea. In any case, no grievance had been taken in the writ petition that the appellate Court had not adverted to issue No,
2. The contention, therefore, fails.
4. Another contention raised is that the appellate Court had failed to advert to the plea of mala fide constituting issue No,
3. The contention has no force because that issue had been examined together with issue No, 1 which related to landlord's bona fide requirement of the premises.
5. The petition thus being without merit is liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel, however, prays for time. Mr. S. M. Zafar who is present for the landlord, agrees to allow two months' time if the petitioner would voluntarily surrender possession at the end of it. We accordingly, while dismissing this petition for leave to appeal, allow the petitioner two months' time, at the expiry of which he shall voluntarily deliver possession to the landlord and also pay rent for this period,