1. ' S.A. NUSRAT, J.-- The dispute in this petition for leave to appeal relates to a plot of land wherefrom the petitioners have been ordered to be evicted.
2. ' The application for ejectment of the petitioners was filed by the respondents Nos.2 to 6, who are trustees of the Masjid-e-Mirajun Nabi Trust, on the ground that the disputed rented land was reasonably and in good faith required for construction of a mosque. The disputed land was let out to the petitioners for commercial purpose by the two lady owners of the land who created the trust and appointed the respondents as trustees. The petitioners have been using the land for the purpose of manufacturing bus bodies. The respondents got the plan for the proposed building approved which was produced during the trial and proved through a witness from the Sind Building Control Authority. The application after contest by the petitioners was allowed by the Rent Controller by his order, dated 13th March, 1982 and the petitioners' first appeal challenging the said order was dismissed by the High Court as per impugned judgment, dated 22nd February, 1984 which is the subject-matter of this petition. The two-fold contentions raised before the High Court were:-
(a) that the requirement of construction of a mosque was not covered under the provisions of the repealed West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance); and
(b) that upon construction of the mosque the petitioners shall stand deprived of the benefit of section 13(5-B) of the Ordinance.
3. ' The learned High Court has held, and rightly so, that subject-matter of tenancy was the rented land as defined in section 2(6) of the Ordinance and the case of the respondents was, therefore, fully covered by section 13(2) (vi) of the Ordinance. In relation to the second contention, it was held that the point was covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Barkat Ali Shah v. Azizullah Khan and others PLD 1980 SC 138.
4. ' The contentions, noted above, were reiterated before us by the learned counsel for the petitioners and no fresh grounds were urged.
5. After hearing the learned counsel and going through the judgment of the High Court, we are satisfied that the findings of the learned High Court are unexceptionable.
6. ' The petition has no merits and is dismissed accordingly.