' This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, assails the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Gujranwala, dated 24th July, 1984, whereby he accepted the appeal filed by respondent No,1 and set aside the order of the Rent Controller dated 21st of June, 1983.
2. On 3rd of September, 1981, Muhammad Sharif and others, petitioners herein, filed an application under Section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 against the respondent with respect to shop situate in Gujranwala, seeking his eviction on the grounds that he was a defaulter and the shop was required by petitioner No,4 Muhammad Aslam, for his own use and occupation.
This application was resisted by respondent No,1 by filing a written reply in which he denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and also controverted the allegations regarding default and personal use. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues:-
(1) Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the petitioners No,2 to 5 and the respondent? O.P.
(2) Whether the petitioners have got no cause of action against the respondent? O.P.R.
(3) Whether the petitioners are estopped by their words and conduct to make the eviction petition?
OPR.
(4) Whether the respondent is a wilful defaulter? ()PA.
(5) Whether the petitioners require the disputed property in good faith for the use of petitioners No,1 to 4? ()PA.
(6) Relief.
3. On the basis of the evidence led before it, the Rent Controller held that the respondent was a tenant under the petitioners, and was not a defaulter. However, the respondent was ordered to be ejected in view of the finding on issue No,5 under which it was held that the shop required by the petitioner No,4 for his own personal use bona fide and in good faith.
4. Aggrieved by this order, the respondent No,1 took an appeal to the Court of District Judge, Gujranwala, who accepted the same on 24th July, 1984. The finding of the Rent Controller on issue No,5 was reversed and it was held that the shop was not required by the petitioners for their own use and the ejectment application had been filed with a view to enhance the rent. This judgment has been assailed by the petitioner, who are the landlords, by filing this petition.
5. I have heard Ch. Muhammad Yamin, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner. No one has entered appearance for the respondent.
6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the District Judge while reversing the order of the Rent Controller has acted contrary to law declared by the superior Courts and has not only misread the evidence, but has also proceeded on irrelevant considerations.
7. A perusal of the judgment of the District Judge shows that he has gone mainly by the omission of the landlord to mention, in the ejectment petition the details of the business which he intended to set up. It was also observed that the petitioner No,4 has no experience of any business, nor was he possessed of sufficient capital. All these considerations were totally irrelevant in the context of the controversy before the District Judge. There is no law which requires a landlord to mention the details of the business sought to be set up nor is there any requirement that the landlord must have obtained any training in the business which he wanted to establish. Similarly, the insistence of the District Judge that it should have been established on the record that the petitioner possessed sufficient funds to establish a business is also contrary to law. Reference in this connection may be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Haji Mohibullah & Co. And others v. Khawaja Bahauddin (1990 SCMR 1070) and the decision of this Court in Mehdi Hassan v. Muhammad Saced Chandna (1982 CLC 1003).
8. Unfortunately, while relying upon AW 1, the District Judge failed to advert to his cross- examination nor was it noticed that the Rent Controller had for valid reasons discarded his testimony. In all fairness, if the District Judge was relying upon the statement of this witness, he should have taken notice of and dealt with the reasons for which the witness was not held to be worthy of any credit by the Rent Controller.
9. The other ground on which the petitioners were non-suited is also untenable. It is since long settled that it is the prerogative of the landlord that a particular property be made available for purpose of running his business. (See Khuda Bakhsh v. Additional District Judge and another (1982 CLC 262) and Abdul Qadus v. District Judge, Sialkot and others (1982 CLC 2355). Neither the Rent Controller nor the tenant can raise any objection in this behalf. It is thus evident that the judgment of the District Judge is not sustainable.
' As a result of what has been said above, this petition is accepted, and, the impugned judgment of Additional District Judge is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect, with the result that the order of the Rent Controller stand restored, with no orders as to costs. The respondent is allowed four months time to vacate the premises.