' This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 arises out of an application under section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 filed by Muhammad Asghar, respondent No,3 seeking his eviction from a shop situated in Mohallah Hajipura, Gujranwala City. The sole ground on which the ejectment petition was based was that the shop was required by respondent No,3 for the use and occupation of his son. The petitioner controverted this averment and also took up the plea that since the tenancy between the parties was for a fixed period of time which was to expire on 31st of May, 1987 the ejectment petition filed on Ist of September, 1985 was premature and was liable to be dismissed. The learned Rent Controller after framing the necessary issues recorded the evidence of the parties. By his order dated 6th June, 1987 the learned Rent Controller decided all the issues in favour of the landlord/respondent No,3 and the petitioner was ordered to be ejected. The petitioner having remained unsuccessful in his appeal which was dismissed by the District Judge, Gujranwala on 23rd of January, 1988 has now filed this Constitutional petition.
2. Mr. Mushtaq Raj, Advocate for the petitioner has raised the following two contentions:--
(i) That it stands admitted on the record that two shops belonging to respondent No,3 in the same market were lying vacant and therefore it could not have been held that the shop in question was required by the son of respondent No,3 for his own use. The learned counsel also pointed out that the two other shops had been sold during the pendency of the ejectment petition. Reference in this connection was made to the statements of Muhammad Ilyas A.W. 1, Abdur Rehman A.W.2 and Muhammad Asghar A.W. 3, all of whom to some extent admitted the availability of other shops. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon Abdul Ghaffar and another v. Muhammad Nazar Ali (PLD 1979 Lah. 17), Syed Amjad Ali Shah v. Muhammad Afzal and 3 others (PLD 1987 Lah. 280), Sardar Muhammad Asim v. Sh. Allah Dad (1987 SCMR 1778) and Shakir Hussain Chishti v. EA.
Breganza (PLD 1984 Kar. 141).
(ii) That the tenancy between the parties was for a fixed period of time to be expired on 31st of May, 1987 and therefore, respondent No,3 could not during the currency of lease file, an ejectment petition which was barred by proviso to section 13(3) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. Reliance in this connection was placed by the learned counsel on Shakir Hussain Chishti v. EA, Breganza (PLD 1984 Kar. 141).
' Mr. Irshad Ahmad Qureshi, learned counsel has been heard on behalf of respondent No,3 in reply.
3. Both the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner have no force. Though as pointed out by the learned counsel it is correct that the witnesses produced by respondent No,3 had admitted that one or two shops belonging to the landlord were lying vacant in the same market and the two other shops had been sold but it was explained by the landlord while appearing as A.W.3 that the shop in dispute is situate towards the front of the market while the other shops were on the back side and were not suitable for the business of a ' general store which his son intended to establish in the shop. He was supported in this respect by Abdur Rehman AW.2.
Both the Rent Controller as also the Additional District Judge duly took notice of this plea raised on behalf of the petitioner and repelled it for the reason aforesaid. Thus the approach of the tribunals below does not suffer from any illegality and arbitrariness and calls for no interference.
Additionally, it is the prerogative of the landlord to select any of his shops for the purpose of his personal occupation and he is the best judge of suitability.
4. So far as the second contention raised by the learned counsel is concerned, even if the application at the time when it was filed was premature, but it matured during its pendency before the Rent Controller as on the own showing of the petitioner the lease in his favour expired on 31st of May, 1987 while the order of ejectment was passed against him on 6th of June, 1987 by the Rent Controller and;by the District Judge on 23rd of January, 1988. Reference in this connection may be made to the case of Iftikhar Ahmad Sheikh v. Mohammad Din (PLD 1990 Lahore 461) and Mst.
Amina Begum and others v. Mehar Ghulam Dastgir L D. 1978 S C220)
"There is no merit in this petition It is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
' At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner he is allowed four months time to vacate the premises.