' MAMOON KAZI, J.---Ejectment application tiled by the petitioner before the Additional Controller of Rent, Clifton Cantonment, Karachi, seeking ejectment of the petitioner from Shop No,6/2, situated on Plot No,2-C, Stadium Lane No,3, Phase-V, Defence Housing Authority, Karachi, was granted vide order, dated 1-4-1998 against which an appeal was filed by the petitioner in the High Court. Initially ejectment was sought on the grounds of default, subletting, damage to the property and personal requirement of the respondents, but subsequently the first three grounds were dropped and ejectment was sought on the ground of personal need only. Both the learned Controller as well as the learned Judge in the High Court appear to have proceeded on the ground that during the cross-examination of the petitioner, he had himself conceded that the respondents had needed the premises in dispute for their personal bona fide use. Such evidence coupled with the evidence of the respondents on the point was held to be sufficient to order ejectment of the petitioner from the demised premises with the learned Judge in the High Court concluding as follows:-- "Also keeping in view the fact that it is the suitability that has been persistent for seeking ejectment in this second round of litigation and no other grounds. With regard to personal bona fide need, the appellant has not been able to demonstrate that the need was not bona tide and for that matter the pre-conditions of section 17 of the Rent Restriction Act, 1963, have not been complied with before the order of ejectment was passed. "
2. Syed Amjad Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that all the pre-conditions laid down by section 17(4)(b)(ii) in the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963, which must be satisfied before ejectment of a tenant may be ordered from a commercial building, were not satisfied in the present case and consequently, the learned Judge in the High Court was in clear error while upholding the order of the Additional Controller. According to the learned counsel, admittedly, the respondents were in possession of another shop situated on Khayaban-e- Shamshir, Phase-V, Defence Housing Authority, Karachi Which they had rented and consequently, all the pre-conditions as laid down in section 17(4)(b)(ii) could not be satisfied by them. Section 17(4)(b) provides as follows:-- "(4) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession,- (a)
(b), in the case of a commercial building, if--
(i) he requires it in good faith for his own use; and
(ii) he is not occupying in the Cantonment area concerned or in any local area in the vicinity thereof in which such building is situate for the purposes of his business any other such building suitable for his needs at the time; and
(iii) he has not vacated such a building in the said area or vicinity without sufficient cause after the commencement of this Act."
3. In this regard, Syed Amjad Hussain has firstly, relied upon the case of Sheikh Muhammad Ayaz v.
Malik Ishtiaq (1996 SCMR 19) where leave to appeal was granted to consider contention of the tenant that, there was overwhelming evidence on record to show that the landlord was already in possession of another shop in the same building where he was carrying on his business and whether in such circumstances it was imperative for the landlord to have established before the Rent Controller that the shop in his possession where he was carrying on his business was not sufficient for his needs. The appeal was however, dismissed as the shop in dispute was found to be insufficient for use by the landlord. In another case reported as Chaudhary Nazir Ahmad v. Mrs. Mariam Salauddin Khawaja (PLD 1994 Lah. 252), also relied upon by Sped Amjad Hussain, it was held that, bare statement of the landlord that he needed the premises in question for personal need, would have shifted the onus to the tenant, but for that the landlord in order to succeed, he should further plead and prove all the three ingredients provided in section 17(4) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963.
4. Syed Ansar Hussain, learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand, has sought support from the case of Abdul Aziz v. Muhammad Ibrahim (PLD 1977 SC 442). In this case the expression "any other such building" occurring in section 13(3)(a)(ii)(b) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, was held to mean building owned by the landlord and the said provisions were held not to cover rented premises.
5. In our view, the first case relied upon by Syed Amjad Hussain does not advance the case of the petitioner in any manner. Paragraph (ii) in section 17(4)(b) no doubt requires it as one of the pre- conditions that, the landlord seeking ejectment of a tenant must prove that he is not occupying in the Cantonment area or in any local area in the vicinity thereof in which such building is situate, any other such building for the purposes of his business, but, as is further indicated by the said paragraph such building must be suitable for his needs at the relevant time. The petitioner in his written-statement did not raise any plea that the premises in occupation of the respondents were sufficient for their needs and as was observed by the learned Judge in Chambers, the former was unable to demonstrate that the need of the respondents was not bona fide. Therefore, in our opinion, the contention raised by the counsel was rightly repelled by the learned Judge in Chambers. However, according to Mr. Ansar Hussain, the expression "building" in section 17(4)(b)(ii) only refers to a building owned by the landlord. The judgment of this Court relied upon by Mr. Ansar Hussain indicates that while interpreting the provisions of section 13(3)(a) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, which are in pari materia with the provisions of section 17(4(b), this Court held that the expression "building" used therein only refers to premises owned by the landlord but not to rented building. Reference was made in this case to the case of Abdul Salam v.
Dr. Najam Parvez (1976 SCMR 52) wherein it was held that the said provisions of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance cannot be extended to cover rented premises otherwise the result could be absurd. It is pertinent to note that the language used in section 17(4)(b) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act is not different.
6. Consequently, it cannot be said that the ejectment petition of the respondents was liable to be dismissed on account of any failure on the part of the respondents to discharge their burden of proof, as pointed out by Syed Amjad Hussain. Consequently, in our view, the judgment of the learned Judge in the High Court does not appear to be open to exception.
7. In the result, leave is refused and the petition is dismissed. The petitioner is, however, granted eight months' time to vacate the premises provided that rent is regularly paid by him to the respondents. In case of any failure on the part of the petitioner to pay rent or to vacate the premises after expiry of such period, he will be liable to be ejected without further notice.