' Respondent filed an ejectment application against the appellant inter alia on the ground of personal requirement. This was contested by the appellant. The learned Rent Controller after framing of issues and recording the evidence, dismissed the application, vide order, dated 16-9- 1996 finding, issue of personal requirement against the respondent. In this behalf, it has been held that the witnesses produced by the respondent, particularly, A.W.1, has admitted, in the cross- examination that there were certain shops, in the same market, which have been vacated by the tenants and were rented out by the respondent to some others. If, the respondent had personal need, he should have occupied such shops. This order has been reversed in the first appeal.
2. The learned Appellate Court, has come to the conclusion that:--- "According to the settled law the landlord/owner has got a prerogative to choose any of his rented property which he thinks suitable for his business and personal need and the tenants have no right to suggest the suitability to the landlord. It will not be out of place to mention here that the appellant, by filing this petition on the basis of personal need, has submitted- himself to the penal consequences provided in the Rent Restriction Ordinance, if he failed to use the shop in dispute as averred in the petition. The appellant, as his own witness appeared before the trial Court and made a statement on oath that he requires the shop in dispute for his personal use and occupation. In such circumstances the bona fide of the appellant/landlord cannot be doubted."
' Unfortunately, the learned trial Court has not bothered to read the evidence on the record, particularly, statement of A.W.1 who, in unequivocal terms admitted that one Habib, a tenant of another shop had died a year ago and this shop has been rented out by the respondent to one Pathan. This statement was recorded on 12-6-1995, while the ejectment petition was led on 4-9- 1994. If, one year is counted from the statement, is shortly before the filing of the ejectment petition, to the shop fell vacant and has been rented out by the respondent to some other tenant, thus, if the respondent genuinely wanted to do his business, he should have occupied the said shop, instead of displacing another tenant. Even otherwise, statement of the appellant, in which he has categorically stated that the shop of Habib was vacated and, the respondent has inducted some other tenant, has not been subjected to cross-examination. These factors have been duly considered by the Rent Controller in non-suiting the respondent. As, mentioned above, the Appellate Court has not taken into account this evidence, which has serious reflection upon the judgment of the Appellate Court and also the bona fide requirement of the respondent.
3. The reason given by the Appellate Court, that it is the prerogative and choice of the landlord to seek eviction of the tenant is not relevant to the instant case, the landlord may have a choice, in case where distinct properties are in occupation of different tenants. The tenant, against whom the ejectment is sought cannot plead, that the ejectment should have been filed against some other property/tenement, which property would be more suitable to the requirements of the landlord. In the present matter the respondent got possession of a shop in the same market, shortly before filing of the ejectment petition and rented out the same of another tenant, without establishing the reason as to why he did not occupy that shop.
' From the collective reading of the evidence, I am satisfied that the respondent was not able to make out a case for bona fide personal requirement, and that the learned Appellate Court has failed to read the evidence on the record, therefore, by allowing this appeal, the impugned order is set aside and that of the learned Rent Controller is upheld. No order as to costs.