1. ' The appellant filed an ejectment application against the respondent in respect of premises in his occupation on the following grounds: (1) That the premises is required for her personal use, (2) the premises has been sublet (3) that the respondent has made unauthorized alteration whereby value and utility of the building has been impaired, and (4) the respondent has converted the use of rented premises from residential to commercial. The learned Controller dismissed the application as none of the allegations were proved.
2. ' Mr. Ameer Ahmad Khan the leartis4 counsel for the appellant contended that the finding of the learned Controller on issue relating to bona fide use and occupation is not correct. The appellant has stated that she is an old lady and requires the premises for her own occupation as at present she is residing on the first floor which does not have bath-room and W.C. It is an admitted position that the appellant possesses a portion of the ground floor also which consists of a store, Verandah, latrine and bath-room. The respondent has stated that recently the appellant has constructed latrine and bath-room on the first floor. The appellant has not produced any independent evidence to prove his disability or the absence of latrine on the first floor which may be causing inconvenience to her.
3. The next ground for appellants requirement is that her daughter and son-in-law who have come from East Pakistan, are living with her and the existing accommodation is not sufficient. Except the word of the appellant no evidence has been produced to substantiate it. Even her son-in-law or daughter has not been examined to prove that they are living with her and helping her in her old age. In my opinion the finding of the learned Controller on this issue is correct.
4. ' The learned counsel next contended that the respondent has made unauthorized alteration and has fixed shutters which has impaired the value and utility of the building. Admittedly there are other shops in the same premises. If a person is carrying on business he has of necessity bound to fix the shutter. This will not impair the value and utility of the building, it will enhance it.
5. ' The next contention is that the respondent has converted the use from residential to commercial.
6. The respondent has specifically stated that before the premises was let out to him it was occupied by another person who was using it as a shop. Another aspect of the case is that the respondent has been using the premises from 1958 for commercial purpose. He has regularly been paying rent because their is no allegation of default. The appellant is residing up stairs and knowing the commercial use by the respondent has been recovering rent without objection. In these circumstances it is too late in the day to object that the respondent is using the premises for his commercial use. From the agreement produced by the appellant it is clear that the latrine and bath-room situated on the ground floor were not included in the rented premises and the appellant has retained them in her possession. This clearly establishes that if the object of the respondent would have been to use the premises for residential purpose he would have insisted on occupation of the latrine and bath-room. The fact that it has been excluded from the tenement leads to the conclusion that the premises was rented out for the purpose of running business. No other contention was raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. The appeal is dismissed in limine.