The petitioners M/s. Service Industries Limited are aggrieved against the orders dated 5-9-1990 and 11-2-1991 of the Rent Controller and learned Additional District Judge, Lahore by which ejectment order has been passed against them in respect of Shop No. S-XIX-R-44/1, Commercial Building, Sharah-e-Quaid-e-Azam, Lahore.
2. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 being landlords filed an application for ejectment on the ground of personal use and also that the term of tenancy granted to the petitioner by the previous landlord for 15 years had already been expired.
3. Respondents got recorded their evidence of A.W.1 to A.W.4 while the petitioners produced R.W.1 and R.W.2 as witnesses before the, Rent Controller. On 12-3-1989 the following issues were framed:- -
(1) Whether the petitioners require the shop in dispute in good faith for their bona fide personal use and occupation? OPA.
(2) Relief.
4. By order dated 5-9-1990 of the learned Rent Controller the ejectment was ordered and the same was upheld in appeal by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore vide order dated 11-2-1991.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners urged only one point that the application for ejectment was not maintainable against the present petitioners as the rented premises are in the name of M/s. Service Industries Ltd., whereas ejectment application has been filed against M/s. Service Shoes (Pvt.) Limited. It is further conceded that the property in dispute is' the same and that this point has not been taken up in the written statement filed before the learned Rent Controller.
6. Admittedly rent note has not been filed in support of the contentions of the petitioners nor any evidence was led to this effect.
Both the Courts below have dealt with the issue of personalrequirement and came to a finding of fact in favour of respondents 1 and 2 and there is no positive evidence to the contrary which could warrant interference by this Court.
It is further held that the respondents are not owner of any other property. Even the learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show any documentary evidence to this effect.
8. It is also admitted that the petitioners were tenants of the property for 15 years which has already been expired. The entire evidence recorded on both the sides has been fully discussed in the two orders impugned in this petition.
9. The learned counsel stated that the respondents-landlords are doing joint business in the. adjoining property. This plea has also been discussed in para. 4 of the order of the appellate authority. Despite this the legal proposition has been discussed and there is a finding that the respondents-- landlords needed the property for their personal use.
10. The learned counsel for the respondents states that the possession of the property has already been delivered to the respondents and no case is made out for the interference in the impugned orders.
11. I have gone through the order of the Rent Controller as well as the order passed by the Appellate Court and am of opinion that the issue regarding personal use has been fully thrashed out and no illegality has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners which warrant interference in this case.
For the aforesaid reasons I see no reason to interfere in the concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the two Courts below.
The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine.