' This judgment shall dispose of Writ Petition No,2323/83 and Writ Petition No,2324/83, which are directed against the same judgment of the Additional District Judge, Lahore. The petitioners in both these writ petitions are tenant under respondent No,1 in possession of their respective shops situated on Dev Samaj Road, Santnagar, Lahore. Apart from the two respondents, there are four other tenants occupying shops in the same building. Respondent No,1 filed six separate ejectment petitions against all his tenants seeking their eviction from the shop on the ground that these shops were required by him for his own personal use. The Rent Controller by means of his order dated 14th May, 1981 dismissed all these ejectment petitions.
2. Against this order of the Rent Controller, respondent No,1 went in appeal before the Additional District Judge, Lahore, where a compromise was arrived at between respondent No,1 and his four tenants, with the result that the four out of six appeals were withdrawn. However, the two appeals out of which the present petitions have arisen, were heard on merits and accepted by the Additional District Judge, Lahore, on Gth March, 1983. While reversing the order of Rent Controller, the Additional District Judge held that the shops in possession of the petitioners were required by the landlord for his own use and that of his son. These two judgments have been assailed by the petitioner by filing these two constitutional petitions.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Additional District Judge was not justified in reversing the finding of the Rent Controller upon the issue of personal use inasmuch as it was proved on the record that respondent No,1 was in the Government employment while his son was already running business. It was further argued that although ejectment petitions with regard to six shops were filed but four ended in a compromise, which adversely affects the bona fide need of the landlord.
4. All these contentions are without any force. It has been found as a fact by the Additional District Judge after appraising the entire evidence on the record that the shops are required by the landlord for his own use as also for the use of his son bona fide and in good faith. No misreading of evidence or non-consideration of any material have been pointed out. So, there is no justification for interference by this Court in the constitutional jurisdiction. The petitions are liable to fail on this ground alone.
5. Even otherwise, the judgment of the Additional District Judge is well founded. The two aspects highlighted by the learned counsel during the course of his arguments were duly adverted to by the Additional District Judge. As regards the contention that the respondent No,1 was in the Government service, it was observed by the Additional District Judge that:- "I have duly considered the evidence on record and arguments advanced by both sides. In this case the landlord has stated that he being a Government servant wants to put his son in business in the shop in dispute so that he may be able to join him when the business is established. Finding of the learned Rent Controller on the point that landlord has failed to prove his bona fides by not applying for retirement is not well based. In this case, he could not have applied for retirement especially in circumstances when it takes years to get a shop vacated on the basis of personal requirement. I think it would have been almost foolishness to apply for retirement much in advance in the face of trend of litigation which takes years to come to an end. In these circumstances the landlord had rightly not applied for premature retirement. Had he done so, he would have been a sufferer. Even this litigation has taken more than three years. The landlord had rightly stated while appearing as AW 4 that he will put his son in business and will apply for retirement to join him when the business is established. I see only bona fides in case of the landlord."
' So far as the pica that son of respondent No,2 was already working, it is to be seen that according to the evidence on the record, he was not occupying any shop in his own independent right, but was working with his uncle and, therefore, the need of the shop for his use cannot be said to be mala fide.
6. So far as the contention of the learned counsel that the petitioner had entered into a compromise, the learned Additional District Judge, rightly observed that this fact by itself was not sufficient to detract from the bona fides of the landlord which otherwise stood proved on the record. As the landlord had lost all the six eviction petitions, his decision to confine his personal need to two of the six shops cannot be said to be unjustified. Further more, as observed by the Additional District Judge, the provisions of Section 13 (4) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, provide sufficient safeguard to the petitioners in case the property is not occupied by the landlord himself.
' As a result of what has been said above, these petitions fail and are dismissed, with no orders as to costs. The petitioners are allowed four months time to vacate the premises.