This order will dispose of writ petition Nos. 1815, 1816, 1817, 1818, 1819, 1820, 1821, 1822 and 1823 of 1989 for having commonality of law and facts.
2. To put it succinctly the necessary facts relevant for disposal of the present petition are that predecessor-in-interest of respondents 1 to 13 and respondent No.16, purchased the suit property in the year 1980, a residential component whereof, viz. a quarter, was in petitioner's possession at a monthly rental of Rs.25, culminating into relationship of landlord and tenant by way of attornment, of which, ejectment was sought on 7-6-1984, on the ground of reconstruction, which was contested solely on the ground that it is designed to enhance the rent, whereupon the solitary issue viz. Whether disputed quarter is reasonably and in good faith required by the petitioner for reconstruction was framed other than the relief.
3. On the basis of evidence adduced by the parties, learned Rent Controller, seized of the matter, allowed the petition on 26-6-1988 which was affirmed in appeal by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore vide the impugned judgment dated 15-2-1989 vires whereof has been assailed in these proceedings.
4. Learned counsel after reiterating the solitary contention, frankly stated that the proposed construction would be beyond petitioner's renting in capacity.
5. I have gone through the entire evidence with the assistance of the learned counsel comprising two witnesses of the respondent viz. Mohammad Iqbal AW-1 and Haji Muhammad Aslam AW-2 coupled with the documentary evidence; three witnesses of the petitioner viz. Qamarul Islam RW-1, Abdul Haq RW-2 and Abdur Rehman RW-3.
Muhammad Iqbal AW-1 deposed that the suit property is in dilapidated condition, portion whereof i.e. a shop, is in his possession at a monthly rent of Rs.50 and alongwith the petitioner he has been promised by the respondents that upon reconstruction they will be offered alternative place, whereas Haji Muhammad Aslam AW-2, in addition to testifying the contents of the ejectment petition tendered in evidence existing site plan of the property EX.A/1 as well as the sanctioned/approved plan for reconstruction of the site as EX.A/2, while, on the other hand, the burden of petitioner's evidence is that the property is not required for bona fide purpose of reconstruction, rather the exercise has been ventured upon with a view to enhancing the rate of rent.
6. I am afraid the contention is utterly devoid of any legal force. Concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two Courts below stand fully substantiated by the evidence on the record and are unexceptionable. Feebly urged contention that rental of the new premises would be beyond petitioner's paying capacity, admittedly is not a relevant factor for the present controversy.
This petition is without any substance and the same is hereby dismissed.
H.B.T./P-76/L