' This SA.O. Arises out of an ejectment application filed by the respondent on 21-11-1985 before the learned Rent Controller, Lahore on the ground of personal need. The application was accepted by the Rent Controller vide his order, dated 26-10-1989. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge vide his order, dated 13-6-1990.
2. Pre-admission notice was issued to the respondent who has entered appearance through his learned counsel Mr. Abdual Waheed Butt.
3. The appellant's learned counsel primarily urged that the bona fide personal requirement of the respondent/landlord was not proved because he owned a number of other shops which could be sufficient for his needs but he did not disclose the said fact in the ejectment petition. He pointed out that the respondent disclosed in his statement that he owned another shop adjacent to the disputed shop which was in possession of Muhammad Ayub as a tenant. He further urged that the respondent in fact owned 4 shops which were rented out to different persons. According to the learned counsel the respondent ought to have given some reason for selecting the petitioner's shop for running his business. In support of his contentions he placed reliance on the cases of Malik Muhammad Ramzan v. Messrs General Iron Stores, Sargodha and another 1984 CLC 2418, Habib- ur-Rahman v. Faqir Muhammad PLD 1983 Lah. 425 and Shakir Hussain Chishti v. E.A. Breganza PLD 1984 Kar.
141. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent owned only one other shop which was in occupation of another tenant named Muhammad Ayub, who was running a general store there. He also urged that the Courts below had given concurrent findings of fact which did not suffer from any legal infirmity.
4. Admittedly, the other shop or shops owned by the respondent landlord were occupied by the tenants. Hence the same were not available for the landlord's use and occupation. Under the provisions of section 13(3)(ii) a landlord may seek eviction of the tenant from a non-residential building or a scheduled or rented land if he requires it in good faith for his own use and he is not "occupying" in the same urban area in which such building is situated for the purposes of his business any other such building or land suitable for his needs at the time and has not vacated any such building or land after the commencement of the Ordinance. The word "occupying" used in section 13(3)(ii) clearly signifies actual physical possession of the building or rented land. Hence even if the respondent/landlord had not disclosed that he owned the other shops which were in possession of the tenants this cannot adversely affect his bona fide claim of personal need of the shop. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant are clearly distinguishable on facts and of no help to him. In Malik Ramzan's case the landlord had not only suppressed material facts but also made false statements in the Court. He falsely stated in the Court that he was "{{URDU TEXT}} ".
' It was got elicited through cross-examination that he had another shop adjacent to the shop in dispute and that he was running flour Chakki since 1953-54. Moreover, he initially stated that he had one Chakki but then admitted that he had another one as well. He further admitted that he had a fairly good business and was paying income tax. Obviously the other shop was not merely owned but was in actual possession of the landlord. The suppression of the material facts and false statements made by the landlord led the Court to conclude that his claim of personal need of the shop was not bona fide. In Habib-ur-Rahman's case the landlord had suppressed the fact that he was in occupation of another business premises. For that reason the claim made by him was treated to be not based on good faith. In Shakir Hussain's case the landlord had not disclosed in his application for ejectment that he also owned another flat in the same urban area. Moreover, he had not established through evidence that such other flat was either occupied or if vacant, was not suitable for his sons' accommodation. In the present case the other shop or shops are admittedly in occupation of tenants and not available for use and occupation by the landlord. The landlord can select any shop considered by him to be suitable for his business and no fetters can be placed on his discretion in this respect.
5. Both the Courts have taken into account the relevant material and rightly recorded their findings on the issue of bona fide personal need in favour. Of the respondent/landlord. The said findings do not suffer from any legal infirmity so as to justify interference' by this Court. Hence the present appeal is dismissed in fimine.