' This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, arises out of an application under Section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, filed by respondent No,1 against the petitioner which was accepted by the Rent Controller on 7th March, 1988, on the ground that the shop in question was required by respondent No,1/landlord for his own use. This finding was affirmed by the Additional District Judge, Lahore, on 4th April, 1989, who dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Hence this petition.
2. It is common ground between the parties that simultaneously the petitioner had filed another application for ejectment in respect of a contiguous shop against Aziz-ur-Rehman, a brother of the petitioner. That petition too was accepted on the ground of personal use both by the Rent Controller as also the Additional District Judge. During the pendency of this petition before this Court, it was stated by the petitioner that his brother had vacated and delivered the possession of the shop to the landlord. This petition was consequently admitted to consider the question as to whether in the circumstances of the case the respondent/landlord can claim the eviction of the petitioner from the shop in question and was his need not satisfied by vacation of the other shop by the brother of the petitioner.
3. Mr. Jahangir A. Jhoja, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there is nothing on the record to show that both the shops were required by the landlord and that the business which he contemplated to set up could not be carried in one shop. The learned counsel for respondent No,1, however, submits that there were three shops in the building and the landlord wanted to run a restaurant in all the three shops after converting the same into one. He is, however, unable to point out any evidence to that effect. On the contrary, while appearing as AW 3 the only statement made by the landlord was that he wanted to establish a hotel in the shop in dispute. Since admittedly during the pendency of this petition, respondent No, 1 has obtained possession of a shop in the same building, the question as to whether the need still subsists or stood satisfied cannot be decided without further enquiry as the evidence on the record is wholly deficient. There is no option but to remand the matter to Additional District Judge to decide it afresh after holding further enquiry into the matter.
' In view of what has been stated above, this petition succeeds to the extent that the order of the Additional District Judge, Lahore, dated 4th April, 1989 is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect and the appeal of respondent No,1 is remitted to him for decision afresh after holding further enquiry as contemplated by section 15(6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, in the terms indicated above. As the dispute has remained pending before different Courts for the last six years, it is directed that the appeal shall be decided within a period of two months from today.
' The parties shall appear before the District Judge, Lahore, on 2nd May, 1991, who may hear the appeal himself or entrust it to any Additional District Judge. There shall be no orders as to costs.