1. ' This petition is directed against the order passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, Cantonment, Karachi and the appellate judgment passed by the learned District Judge, South Karachi. Both have found that the premises in question comprising two godowns are required in good faith by the respondent No.3 namely Hockey Club of Pakistan and consequently, the petitioner who was a tenant of the aforesaid respondent had been directed to vacate the premises within 60 days of the passing of the judgment by the learned District Judge, i.e. 6-7-1986.
2. ' Mr. Munawar Ghani has raised a two-fold contention. Firstly, according to him "good faith" has not been established by the third respondent in this petition and secondly, since the said respondent was not doing any business, he was not competent to file the eviction application, since the building in question is a commercial building.
3. ' Both the contentions appear to be devoid of force. The two subordinate Courts on the basis of evidence produced by the parties have found that the premises were required by the respondent No.3 in good faith. I have seen that the reasons given by them are convincing and no grounds have been established by the petitioner to interfere with the impugned judgments. The premises in question, according to the third respondent, are intended to be used for construction of changing, service and kit rooms which are required for tournaments which are held frequently in Karachi on the astroturf play ground of the respondent. The evidence discussed by the subordinate Courts in the impugned order and the judgment respectively sufficiently support the respondent's plea. I, therefore, find no force in the first contention.
4. ' The second contention relates to section 17 (4)(b)(ii) of the. Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 (XI of 1963). According to Mr. Munawar Ghani only such landlord who is doing business of his own is competent to file eviction application under the abovesaid provisions of law since the building in question is a commercial building. The argument appears to be completely misconceived as what paragraph (ii) of B subsection (4)(b) of section 17 of Act Xl of 1963 requires is that the landlord in order to be entitled to seek eviction of the tenant, must not be occupying any other building in or in vicinity of the area concerned for the purpose of his business at the relevant time. Since no such allegation, even now, has been made by the petitioner against the third respondent the argument is not tenable. In any case, the ground has been taken for the first time in this petition and the same C was not raised earlier before the two subordinate Courts and, therefore, the same cannot be permitted to be taken now at this stage.
5. ' For the aforesaid reasons, this petition is without force and it is dismissed in limine.