' This Constitutional petition calls in question order, dated 12-2-1998, passed in appeal by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore.
2. Respondent No,3 filed a petition under section 13 of Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance seeking eviction of the petitioner from a portion of Bungalow No,7, Block-G, Gulberg-II, Lahore on the ground of default in payment of rent, damage and personal use. Relationship of landlord and tenant was admitted but, however, the ejectment petition was resisted on merit by denying allegations of default, damage and personal use.
3. The learned Rent Controller, vide order, dated 31-5-1997 dismissed ejectment petition but in appeal ejectment was allowed on the ground of personal use.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that respondent No,3 was in possession of sufficient accommodation and that the plea of bona fide need was not established and also that the learned Rent Controller has dismissed the petition for cogent reason which was incorrectly disturbed in appeal by the learned Additional District Judge.
5. In reply, it was argued, that the respondent was in occupation of a small portion of the property comprising of two bed rooms, one bath and one drawing/dining room and that he required the rented premises in good faith for accommodating his son who was at marriageable stage. It was argued, that at the time when ejectment was filed, one son of the respondent had attained the marriageable age but now the other son of the respondent had also grown-up and the respondent intended to marry him. It was added that the three families could not be accommodated in two bed rooms and therefore, the portion of the premises, in occupation of the petitioner, comprising two bed rooms, one drawing/dining leaving rooms and servant quarters was required in good faith and bona fide manner by the respondent.
6. The respondent, with a view to prove bona fide need, produced Abid Zia, A.W.1, Abdul Haq A.W.2 and himself appeared as A.W.3, A.W.1, deposed that the rented premised was required by the respondent for the purpose of his son. Similar statement was made by A.W.2 who maintained that the son of respondent No,3 was to be married and accommodated in a separate accommodation.
Respondent No,3 himself appeared as A.W.3 and deposed that the existing accommodation was insufficient to cater the need of three sons. He deposed that his one son was in M.A. Final and that he wanted to marry his son and, therefore, the rented premises was required for the use of son. He was thoroughly cross-examined but nothing could be extracted which could be said to be adverse to the plea of personal use. At present, one of the son of respondent has completed M.A., the other has completed Chartered Accountancy and the third is yet to complete education. The respondent, presently intends to marry two sons. His present accommodation is two bed rooms alongwith baths and drawing/dining which obviously could not be said to be sufficient to cater the needs of two additional familites. The two portions being part of the same property and contiguous to each other can be used as one house and can, thus, be sufficiently utilized for accommodating the need of two sons who are being married. As against the evidence of the respondent, the petitioner produced Yawar Hayat R.W.1 who stated that he did not know the respondent personally.
R.W.2 Muhammad Shaukat admitted that the respondent had three sons, the age of his elder son was 20/22 years and that he was in service. He further admitted that the younger son of respondent was 18 years old. Petitioner himself appeared as R.W.3 and claimed that the respondent did not require the rented premises. In cross-examination, he did not deny that the respondent had three sons and one of the sons was aged 22 years.
7. The evidence on record is, thus, sufficient enough to prove that the respondent required the property in good faith for accommodating the need of his sons who are to be married.
8. The learned Additional District Judge, after considering the evidence on record, also came to the conclusion that the rented portion was required in good faith and bona fide manner by the respondent because of the need of his elder sons, whom he intend to marry. Findings recorded by the learned Additional District Judge on the question of personal use do not suffer from any misreading of the evidence on record or any error of law.
9. No ground is, thus, made our for interference in Constitutional jurisdiction.
10. For the reasons above, this petition being without substance is dismissed. Petitioner is, however, allowed a period of four months to deliver vacant possession of rented premises to respondent No,3.