' This Constitutional petition arises out of order, dated 5-10-1981 of the learned Additional District Judge whereby he dismissed petitioner's appeal against the order, dated 6-4-1981 of the learned Rent Controller, Lahore directing his ejectment from the disputed property.
2. The dispute in this case relates to the ejectment of petitioner from a portion of Property No, S-1- 24-S-17, Gawalmandi, Lahore. The petitioner occupied the same as tenant under the respondent No, 1 at the rent of Rs,100 per month. The respondent No, 1 filed ejectment petition against him on the ground that he required the premises in dispute in good faith for his personal use and occupation.
' The petition was resisted by the present petitioner. The learned Rent Controller on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed following issues: -
(1) Whether the petitioner requires the property for personal use? O.P.P.
(2) Relief.
' The evidence led by the parties was recorded by the learned Rent Controller and vide order, dated 6-4-1981 directed petitioner's ejectment from the disputed property. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order in appeal which was dismissed on 5-10-1981 by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore. Hence this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent No, 1 in his ejectment petition claimed that the premises in his possession were insufficient to meet his requirement but set up a different case at the trial. It was subsequently asserted by him that his relation with daughter-in- law (wife of Aitzazul Islam) became strained and he wanted to shift in the disputed portion of the property, which belonged to him.
' It was also contended that a portion of the building had been vacated by his son Dr. Munawarul Islam which could be utilized by him. It was argued that the disputed portion of the property was hardly suitable for the use of landlord's residence but was being got vacated for constructing shops as it abutted the main road on two sides. It was also pointed out that the landlord had three wives and had issues therefrom.
' He had distributed the property among his prospective heirs through fake registered deeds. The litigation among them was pending in different Courts.
4. Learned counsel for the opposite side on the other hand contended that the learned Rent Controller as well as the learned Additional District Judge had concurrently held that the premises in dispute were required by the landlord bona finely for his use and occupation. The orders were not assailable in writ jurisdiction. It was also stated that there was no other property owned by the landlord except the one in dispute which was required in good faith for his use and occupation. It was also stated that the portion of property vacated by Mr. Munawarul Islam did not belong to the landlord nor he had any claim over the same. Similarly it was stated that the landlord having strained relations with his daughter-in-law did not want to stay with her and wanted to shift in the premises owned by him. The landlord's need being bona fide was rightly appreciated by the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and accordingly directed petitioner's ejectment.
5. I have considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through relevant evidence on the record with their assistance. Dr. Muhammad Afzal Mirza specifically stated that except the property in dispute, he owned no other property for his use and occupation. The learned Rent Controller as well as the learned Additional District Judge relied on his evidence and came to concurrent finding of fact that the premises in dispute were required by him bona fidely for his use and occupation. This finding even if assumed to be erroneous, is subject to no interference in writ jurisdiction. The conclusion drawn by the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 from the evidence on record in this behalf is consistently possible and is neither the result of misreading or non-consideration of documents on the record, I am, therefore, not persuaded to interfere in the impugned orders even if another view could possibly be formed from the evidence on the record. It is significant to point out that the landlord had developed strained relations with his daughter-in- law and did not like to stay with his son and his wife. This circumstance alone is sufficient to establish his bona fide need to shift to the portion of the same property owned by him. The landlord presently was not occupying the portion of the property with his son in his own right, therefore, he could legitimately seek eviction of the petitioner from the premises which belonged to him for his own use and occupation. In a similar case entitled Ghulam Nabi v. Rao Muhammad Usman Ali Khan 1980 SCMR 751 the Supreme Court observed as under:- "It may here be observed that he was not occupying his son's house in his own right and, therefore, he had every reason to seek ejectment of the petitioner from his house which he intended to occupy in terms of section 13(3)(1)(i) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959."
Respectfully relying on the principle laid down in above-cited case I find no force in this petition and dismiss the same with no order as to costs.