1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Two petitions have been filed in separate rent restriction matters by the landlord's side. By separate orders, writ petitions filed by tenants ordered to be evicted, have been allowed by the High Court on the similar grounds.
2. ' In one case (C.P.76/1988) the learned counsel has argued that the reasoning of the High Court to the effect that non-residential premises could not have been ordered to be vacated for personal use of the landlady for residential purposes, suffers from error of interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Rent Restriction Ordinance. He has also argued that decisions of this Court to the effect that a residential building cannot be got vacated for non-residential purposes would not be attracted. He further stated that there is no judgment of this Court to support the view taken by the High Court that non-residential premises cannot be got vacated for residential purposes.
3. ' In the other case (C.P. 261/1988) a landlord has been non-suited by the High Court after his success before the two learned Courts below on the ground that a property leased out for commercial purposes could not be claimed by him for personal residential use.
4. After hearing the arguments in support of these two petitions, we deem it a matter of first impression; to examine whether a non-residential building cannot be got vacated for residential purposes. Leave to appeal accordingly is granted in both the cases.
5. ' Security Rs,5,000 in each case.
6. ' The appeals shall be prepared on the present record with direction to the parties to file necessary additional documents within two months.