SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the order dated 22-3-1987 of the Lahore High Court.
2. The property in dispute is a shop situate in Okara. It was owned by Fazal Ahmad who gave it on rent to Tajuddin. On 28-2-1970 Fazal Ahmad filed an application before the Rent Controller for the ejectment of Tajuddin on a number of grounds. One of the grounds taken by him was--and this is the only ground which is now relevant---that he needed the shop for the personal use of his sons.
In respect of this ground the Rent Controller framed the following issue: Whether the petitioner requires the shop in dispute bona fide for personal use of his sons?
The evidence led by Fazal Ahmad indicated that the shop was required not for any of his living sons but his son's son whose father had earlier died. The learned Rent Controller decided this issue as well as the other issues against Fazal Ahmad and dismissed the application.
3. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Rent Controller both Fazal Ahmad and Tajuddin died. The petitioners are the legal representatives of Tajuddin while the respondents are the legal heirs of Fazal Ahmad. The respondents challenged the order of the Rent Controller in appeal before the Additional District Judge. By his order dated 18-2-1980 the learned Additional District Judge accepted the appeal and directed the ejectment of the petitioners. To challenge the order of the Additional District Judge, the petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court. A learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition.
4. In support of this petition, two grounds have been taken by the petitioners. Firstly, it is stated that in his application Fazal Ahmad had pleaded the personal need of his sons. The learned Rent Controller framed an issue which faithfully incorporated this plea. The need of the grand-son was not put to trial and as such their ejectment could not be directed on this ground. Secondly, it is contended that a grand-son could not be regarded as a child of the landlord within the meaning of section 13 (3) (ii) (a), Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance. In this context reliance is being placed on Muhammad Zahir Khan v. Shah Muhammad PLD 1980 Lahore 125.
5. The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners require examination. Leave to appeal is granted. Security for costs in the sum of Rs.500. The appeal may be made ready for hearing on the present record with permission to the parties to file additional documents, if any. It should be listed for hearing at Rawalpindi on 29-6-1987. Status quo with regard to possession to be maintained till the disposal of the appeal.