' The petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitutional Order, 1981, has been filed to call in question the order of the learned Additional District Judge, dated 11-4-1984 affirming the order of the Rent Controller, dated 28-2-1983, directing the ejectment of the petitioner from the premises in dispute.
2. Facts, briefly stated,are that Sh. Muhammad Ramzan, respondent No.3, sought the ejectment of the petitioner from the shop and godown forming part of Property No. 66, General Busstand Badami Bagh, Lahore, which was in possession of the petitioner as a tenant. Ejectment was sought on the sole ground that respondent No, 3 required the premises in dispute in good faith for the uae and occupation of his sons, Aziz-ur-Rehman and Iftikhar Ali, who wanted to do their business therein. Petitioner contested the ejectment petition controverting the allegations made by the respondent landlord. Pleading of the parties gave rise to the following issues:-
(1) Whether the petitioner requires bona fidely the shop in dispute for his sons Aziz-ur-Rehman and Iftikhar Ali?
(2) What is the effect of previous litigation between the parties?
(3) Whether the plan and boundaries of the shop in dispute are incorrect? If so, with what effect?
(4) Relief.
3. In order to prove his case that he needed the premises in dispute for the use of his aforementioned sons, the respondent landlord examined Ghulam Rasool P.W.1, his sons Aziz-ur- Rehman and Iftikhar as P.W.2 and P.W.3, and he himself appeared as P.W.4. Petitioner, on the other hand, produced six witnesses including himself.
' Respondent landlord led evidence to prove that the premises in dispute were needed, in good faith, for the use and occupation of his sons Aziz-ur-Rehman and Iftikhar. Aziz-ur-Rehman appearing as P.W. deposed that he wanted to start the business of autos in the disputed shop.
Similarly, Iftikhar appearing as P.W.3 stated that he wanted to start his own business alongwith his brother Aziz-ur-Rehman in the premises in dispute.
' Evidence led by the petitioner on the relevant aspect was to the effect that the respondent landlord did not require the premises in dispute bona fide for the use and occupation of his sons and that he owned other properties in Akbari Mandi, Shad Bagh and Sheranwala Gate.
4. Learned Rent Controller as also the learned Additional District Judge after thorough appraisal of the evidence on the record held that it has not been proved that Aziz-ur-Rehman and lftikhar Ahmad sons of the respondent landlord were carrying on any business independently or they were in possession of any other property. Learned Additional District Judge further held that it has not been proved that the properties said to have been owned by the respondent landlord were lying vacant or were suitable for the need of his sons. As regards godown in Shad Bagh owned by the respondent landlord, learned Additional District Judge accepted the explanation of the respondent that it had caught fire and, in any case, he needed it for his own use and occupation. As regards the shop in Akbari Mandi, it was stated by the respondent landlord that he himself was carrying on his business therein and has accommodated one of his other sons in that shop. It is also cbserved that the respondent landlord had a right to choose any property which he considered suitable for the use and occupation of his sons. Issue No.1 was, therefore, decided in favour of the respondent landlord and petitioner was ordered to be ejected from the premises in dispute.
5. This writ petition was heard alongwith the connected Writ Petition (No.2200-84) filed by Muhammad Latif, another tenant of the respondent landlord, who was ordered to be ejected from another shop. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued only one point viz. that the statements of R.W. 1 to R.W. 5 recorded in the ejectment petition against the present petitioner Muhammad Ramzan v. Muhammad Ayub was copied out verbatim in the ejectment case against Muhammad Latif. It may be noticed that this argument was relevant only in the other Writ Petition No.2200-84 which has been dismissed today. That point has no relevance whatsoever so far as the present writ petition is concerned because admittedly evidence was recorded by the learned Rent Controller in the present case.
6. In the present case, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the reasoning and the discussion in the connected case Muhammad Ramzan v. Muhammad Latif has been adopted in the present case with the result that the learned Rent Controller has not decided the case against the petitioner on the basis of the record in the present case. He particularly referred to the following observation made by the Rent Controller in his impugned order:- "The other points raised by the respondents have been discussed in the other suit between Muhammad Ramzan v. Muhammad Latif in my judgment . Because both the applications were proceeded side by side and similar points have been raised in that ejectment application, therefore, I do not think that those should be discussed here also. These points discussed by me in that judgment upon issue No.1, should be read as part of this judgment also."
' The afore-quoted observation, in my view, has no material effect on the finding recorded by the learned Rent Controller on issue No.1. Impugned order of the learned Rent Controller shows that issue No.1 has been decided after full discussion of the relevant evidence. Learned Rent Controller has referred to the evidence of Aziz-ur-Rehman P.W.2 and Iftikhar Ahmad P.W.3, who stated that they needed the shop for running their business therein. Reference has also been made to the statement of the respondent landlord as also Ghulam Rasool P.W.1. Learned Rent Controller has also discussed the evidence led by the petitioner which was to the effect that Aziz-ur-Rehman and Iftikhar were doing business elsewhere but he did not accept that evidence and decided the issue in favour of the-respondent landlord.
' As regards the other points raised by the petitioner which the learned Rent Controller did not think necessary to discuss in view of his discussion in the other case against Latif,it may be noticed that those points have no material bearing on issue No.1. One of those points related to the previous litigation which the respondent landlord had with one Munawar Hussain. That litigation obviously had no effect on the case against the petitioner on issue of personal need which has been decided on the basis of evidence led by the parties.
' The other plea dealt with in the case against Latif is that there was a vacant piece of land in front of the premises in dispute which was owned by the respondent landlord on which he wanted to raise construction. A suit was brought by the tenants to restrain him from raising construction thereon. A suggestion was put to the landlord whether after constructing the shops on that piece of land, he shall give those shops on rent to the tenants in lieu of the premises in dispute which suggestion landlord denied. Learned Rent Controller drew an inference from this that the tenant had impliedly admitted the need set up by the respondent landlord.
' As shown above, the points discussed in the case of Latif to which reference has been made in the present case have, in no manner, affected the decision on issue No.1.
7. Apart from the objection discussed above, learned counsel for the petitioner did not specifically question the findings of the Courts below on the issue of personal need. It may be observed that the issue of personal requirement which is one of fact has been concurrently held 'against the petitioner by the learned Courts below. Impugned judgments show that the findings of the learned Courts below are based on proper appraisal of the relevant evidence on the record. That being so, their findings are not open to interference by this Court in its constitutional jurisdiction.
8. Unshot of the above discussion is that the impugned orders of ejectment proceed on correct premises, legal as also factual. This petition has no merit and the same is hereby dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case.