' fly this Constitutional Petition the order dated 21-11-1982 of the learned Additional Rent Controller, Clifton Cantonment, in R. C. No, 60 of 1981, and judgment dated 14-4-1983 of the learned District Judge, arachnid, passed in Rent Appeal No, 36 of 1982, by which respondent No, l's application for ejectment of the petitioner was allowed, has been called ingestion.
2. The respondent No, 1 submitted an application for ejectment on the grounds that on 7-11-1980 he retired from Pakistan Air Force on the rank of Group Captain, however, keeping his vast experience on a senior rank n view he was taken back on re-employment by Air Force on the reduced an and his present service is absolutely temporary. He has no other premises except the disputed premises and he needs the said premises in good faith for the residential purposes for himself, his wife and children. He has also mentioned therein that the respondent No, 1 had failed to payment for the months of May, June and July, 1981.
3. The petitioner had stated in his written statement that the application was not maintainable and had been filed with ulterior motives. The application was filed as a result of non-compliance of illegal request of enhancement of rent. The respondent No, 1 was already been in possession of official accommodation and hence the application was liable to be dismissed.
4. The respondent No, 1 in his statement had supported the application and had clearly stated that the premises are required for his bona fide use. The petitioner in his statement had denied that the premises are required for bona fide use and further had stated that application was mala fide as he had not acceded to the request of enhancement of rent.
5. The learned Additional Rent Controller taking into consideration the evidence adduced before it allowed the respondent's application on the ground of personal requirement vide his order dated 21-11-1982, against which was also petitioner filed Rent Appeal No, 36 of 1982, which was as also dismissed and the order dated 21-11-1982 of the Additional Rent Controller was confirmed and consequently petitioner has filed the above petition, on the grounds mentioned in the memo. Of petition.
6. The main grounds on which both the order and judgment are attached by the learned Advocate for the petitioner in above petition are as follows :-
(i) That the respondent No, 1 is in possession of suitable premises as such application is not maintainable.
(ii)That the learned Courts below cannot take into consideration subsequent wants.
(iii) That the conclusions and inferences drawn by the Courts below are purveys and contrary to the evidence on record.
7. In view of the above submissions the learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that both the order and judgment of learned District Judge, Karachi, are without lawful authority and in complete violations of the provisions of Cantonment Rent Restriction Act (IX of 963) and consequently both order and judgment are liable to be quashed by this Court, as both the concern Courts assumed jurisdiction which was not vested in them and conclusions and inferences drawn by the concerned are perverse and contrary to evidence on record. He was already in occupation of a residental accommodation which was suitable for him. He also submitted that the cause of action was subsequently arose. In support of the above contentions the learned Advocate for the petitioner relied upon PLD 1971 SC 82, 1980 CLC 73.
8. The learned Advocate for the respondent No, 1 on the other hand submitted, that both the impugned order and the judgment of the learned District Judge, Karachi, are legal and both the said learned Courts assumed jurisdiction directly in disposing of respondent No, l's application on \ merits. The respondent No, I was inoccupation of official accommodation which he had to vacate.
As far as the second objection of the learned Advocate for the petitioner is concerned, the learned Advocate for the respondent No, 1 submitted that it is clear from the ejectment application and the letter of reference Exh. 1 that the respondent No, 1 sought ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of his own personal and bona fide need. The learned Advocate for the respondent No, 1 has also submitted that the conclusions and inferences drawn by the concerned Courts on the evidence duly recorded in the case are neither perverse nor contrary to evidence on record. The leaned Advocate for the respondent No, 1 draw my attention to the application of respondent No, 1 and the evidence brought on record, it clearly shows that the respondent No, 1 had sought ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of his own personal bona fide needs as he was retired as Group Captain w,e,f, 7-11-1980, and the subsequent re-employment was temporary. The learned Advocate for the respondent No, 1 also submitted that the learned Additional Rent Controller and the learned appellate authorities under the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, in exercise of the discretion vested in them are not precluded to allow any bona fide amendments and take note of subsequent events in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation and shorten the proceedings.
9. I have carefully considered the above submissions made by the learned Advocates before me and have gone through the pleadings and depositions of the parties annexed to this petition. 1 have also gone through the cases cited by the learned Advocates before me as well as through the impugned order and judgment.
10. Admittedly, this is a Constitutional Petition and not a IInd Appeal, and consequently the impugned order and the judgment of both the learned lower Courts can only be attacked on limited grounds unlike IInd Appeal where the scope of such attack is wider.
11. The first objection took by the learned Advocate for petitioner before me that the respondent No, 1 was already in occupation of a residential building which was suitable for his needs, he did not require the premises in-question for his personal occupation, but he wanted to get the petitioner ejected as the petitioner refused to pay the enhanced rent of Rs, 1,500. He relied on 1980 CLC 604 wherein it was held that the applicant must show such premises being unsuitable for his needs.
The learned Advocate of the respondent No, 1 submitted that the facts of the case are distinguishable from the facts of the present case. He submitted that the respondent No, 1 was in occupation of Government accommodation. He was occupying the official accommodation as a licensee and can be thrown out of it at any time without notice. He retired with effect from 7-11- 1980. He had vacated the same during the pendency of the proceedings in the trial Court as his services were terminated. He relied on 1979 CLC 730. In my opinion, the contention has no force.
12. The second contention for the petitioner that since the cause of action subsequently arose as such the application was not maintainable. In support of this contention he relied upon PLD 1971 s C 82. The learned Advocate for the respondent has contended that the respondent retired on 7-11- 1980 and, thereafter, he was re-employed on temporary basis which could be terminated at any time and during the pendency of the proceedings in the trial Court, his services were terminated, and he had to vacate the premises. Ejectment application discloses very clearly that the premises require for his personal need. In my view, these findings of the learned Additional Rent Controller as well as the learned appellate Court that he vacated the official accommodation during the pending of proceedings before the learned Additional Rent Controller are correct and I see no reason to disagree with the findings of the learned appellate Court. The law laid down in PLD 1978 SC 220 is applicable to the facts of the case. I find no force in the contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner.
13. The last contention of the learned Advocate also has no force in my opinion. I have gone through the depositions of the parties. The learned Additional Rent Controller after examining the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the respondent No, 1 needed the premises bona fide for his A own use as he had vacated the Government accommodation. I am satisfied that conclusions and inferences drawn by the learned Additional Rent Controller and the first appellate Court on the evidence duly recorded in the case, are neither perverse nor contrary to evidence on record.
Therefore, I find no merits in the above petition which is consequently dismissed with no orders as to costs. The learned Advocate for the petitioner undertakes to vacate the house in question on 31- 10-1983. The Advocate for the respondent No, 1 has no objection to the above suggestion. I allow three months' time to the petitioner to vacate the premises in his occupation and handover the peaceful possession of the premises to respondent No, 1 on or about 31-10-1983, provided he continues to deposit rent in accordance with the at tentative orders.