' This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan calls in question the judgment dated 27-3-1988 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 11-11-1987 passed by the learned Rent Controller whereby the application for ejectment filed by the petitioner against respondent No,3 was dismissed.
2. The background of the case is that the petitioner filed an ejectment application against respondent No,3 under section 13 of the Punjab Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 (hereinafter called the Ordinance) for seeking his ejectment from Shop No,1, in Property No,NVI-I-S-12, situated at Street No,1, Qila Lachhman Singh, Ravi Road, Lahore, on the ground of personal use, nuisance and damage to the rented property. The ejectment petition was contested by respondent No,3. In view of the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed by the learned Rent Controller:-
(1) Whether the petitioner requires the disputed property bona fide and reasonably for his personal need?
(2) Whether respondent has damaged and impaired its utility?
(3) Whether petitioner has no cause of action?
(4) Whether petition is mala fide?
(5) Whether disputed property has not been properly described?
(6) Relief.
' The parties led their respective evidence. Yasin Malik P.W.1, Aman Ullah, and the petitioner appeared as his own witness as P.W.3, whereas respondent No,3 produced Muhammad. Yaqoob, R.W.1, Sarfraz Ali, R.W.2 and himself appeared as R.W.3.
3. Learned Rent Controller, after appreciating the evidence, dismissed the ejectment application vide order dated 11-11-1987. The learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, vide order dated 27-3- 1988, dismissed the appeal.
4. Syed Najamul Hassan Kazmi, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the impugned orders are based on misreading of evidence on record, inasmuch as the petitioner deposed in examination-in-chief that the shop in dispute was required for running the business of vegetables, but the Courts below erred in holding that no such statement was available on record.
5. Mr. Muhammad Rafiq Chauhan, learned counsel for respondent No,3, argued that there is no mention in the plaint what sort of business the petitioner wants to start. There is always a bona fide need and he has not been able to adduce any evidence to this extent. He admits in his evidence in cross-examination that {{URDU TEXT}}
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. A bare perusal of testimony of the P.W.3 would show that the shop in dispute was required by the petitioner for vending vegetables. However, the learned Additional District Judge, in the impugned order dated 27-3-1988 wrongly observed that the petitioner has failed to bring forth the nature of the business he wants to run in the disputed shop. Clearly the impugned order of the learned Additional District Judge is based on misreading of evidence and on this short ground alone is liable to be quashed.
' In view of the above, this petition is allowed. The result is that the case is remanded to the learned District Judge, Lahore, for entrusting it to any Additional District Judge for hearing the appeal afresh on merits and in accordance with law in the light of the observations made above. There shall be no order as to costs.