' On 18th February, 1985 respondents Nos.1 to 5 filed on application under section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 seeking eviction of the petitioners from Shop No,2 Property No,2 Main Bazar Mustafa Abad, Lahore on the grounds of non-payment of rent, damage to the property and personal use of respondent No,1. The Rent Controller vide his order, dated 3rd October, 1987 decided the grounds of default and damage to the property in favour of the petitioners but directed their eviction holding that the shop was required by respondent No,1 bona fide and in good faith for their use. The appeal of the petitioners before the Additional District Judge, Lahore having been dismissed on 2nd of October, 1989, he has now filed this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
2. Sh. Abdul Sattar Zahid, Advocate has contended that it is proved on the record that apart from the shop in question, respondents also own other shops which were lying vacant, and therefore, the two Courts below have acted illegally in holding that the shop in question was required by respondents for use of respondent No,1 bona fide and in good faith. This contention of the learned counsel has no force. It has been concurrently found by both the Courts below that the other shops referred to by the learned counsel are not owned by the respondent No,1 but by his stepbrother Ehsanul Haq. No document was A produced by the petitioners to rebut this positive assertion on the part of the respondent No,1. Their oral evidence has been duly appraised and discarded for valid reasons. No fault can, therefore, be found with the findings of the Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge.
3. Be that as it may, according to the case of the petitioners themselves the other two shops referred to by their learned counsel, are not exclusively owned by respondents Nos.1 to 4 but their step-brother Ehsanul Haq was also a co-sharer. Even if it be so respondents 1 to 4 are well within rights in demanding that the shop in question which exclusively belongs to them should, be made available for the occupation of respondent No,1. That being so the petitioners cannot succeed in the present petition.
' As a result of what has been stated above this petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The petitioner shall vacate the premises and hand over the vacant possession to respondents Nos.1 to 4 on or before 27th May, 1991.