SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---The petitioner, a tenant under orders of ejectment, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Baluchistan High Court dated 26-6-1989.
2. The respondent/landlord purchased a property which had a Musafirkhana on the first floor and a shop on the ground floor. He moved the Rent Controller on 25-11-1986 for eviction of the tenant from the shop on the ground of personal need and default in payment of the rent. The petitioner admitted that there existed Musafirkhana but pleaded that he was not in default and the landlord wanted to enhance the rent and that was the object for which his eviction was sought. The Rent Controller rejected the application on the ground that no regular Musafirkhana was found to exist nor the shops were required for the Musafirkhana, and upheld the plea of the appellant that ejectment was sought with a view to pressurize the tenant for enhancement of the rent.
3. On appeal the High Court reversed the finding with regard to the personal need on the ground that in the reply to the eviction petition the tenant had admitted that there was a Musafirkhana on the first floor and that the guests used to come on and stay there.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has taken. Up three grounds for maintaining this petition. In the first place it has been contended that there is no Musafirkhana in the premises and it is being used as a guest house for relatives and visitors from the village. Secondly, it was contended that the landlord had in the meantime got vacated a large hotel which was being run by him and it had also a Restaurant in it. The third ground taken up is that the landlord is running many other businesses as Stockist in Cement and as partner in the business of his brothers in Hotels and Restaurants, which disentitle him from seeking the property on the ground of personal need.
5. As regards the existence of Musafirkhana and the needs of the occupants of the Musafirkhana, the High Court has examined the pleadings and the evidence to come to the conclusion that there was almost a conclusive admission on that point and it was not necessary to prove the existence of Musafirkhana by reference to the official record. As regards the vacation of the premises, we find that in the evidence it has been stated that the landlord got vacated from the respondent the property which was in his possession and use as a Hotel. Where the landlord gets the property vacated from the tenant, it cannot be said that the tenant voluntarily vacated the premises so as to disentitle himself in seeking another property on the ground of personal need. Besides, the nature of the need and its being a Musafirkhana, do not make that property of relevance.
6. We do not find any merit in the petition and the same is dismissed and the leave to appeal is refused.