' MAMOON KAZI, J.---The petitioner succeeded in getting an order of ejectment from the learned Rent Controller, Rawalpindi and the appeal filed by the respondent against the said order was also dismissed and the order passed by the Rent Controller was maintained. However, on second appeal the orders passed by the two learned Courts below were reversed.
2. It transpired during the hearing before the Second Appellate Court that during the pendency of the first appeal two shops in the same premises had fallen vacant which were let out by the petitioner but no explanation was offered by him indicating that the said shops were not suitable for his requirement. In fact it further came to light that the fact that two shops had fallen vacant after their vacation by the original tenants was brought to the notice of the Appellate Court but the petitioners resisted an attempt by the respondent to lead evidence in this behalf and explain the circumstances. In fact, as is indicted by the judgment of the High Court, it had been denied by the petitioner before the First Appellate Court that the shops had fallen vacant during the pendency of the first appeal. Even before the High Court the situation was not different but, as has been observed by the learned Judge in Chambers, subsequently the petitioner admitted that the said shops had fallen vacant during the pendency of the first appeal. This led the learned Judge in Chambers to hold that the petitioner had failed' to establish his good faith or bona fides as required by law which resulted in allowing of the respondent's appeal and dismissal of the petitioner's ejectment application.
3. Mr. Tanvir Bashir Ansari, while assailing the order of the High Court has invited our attention to the observations made by the learned District Judge while disposing of the first appeal which indicate that as the said shops had fallen vacant during the pendency of the first appeal, the same did not adversely affect the bona fides of the landlord after he had already sought an order of ejectment of the tenant from the Rent Controller. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that it is the prerogative of the landlord to make his choice and the two shops which had fallen vacant were not suitable for his needs. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel on:--
(i) Nooruddin and others v. Asghar Ali and others (1968 SCMR 1087),
(ii) Muhammad Latif v. Hakim Nisar Ahmed and others (1986 SCM R 650),
(iii) Sabu Mal v. Kika Ram alias Heman Dad (1973 SCM R 185).
' The ratio of these cases no doubt appears to support the view that if the landlord possesses more than one house in the same urban area, the choice as to the house in which he is to live is a matter of prerogative and discretion, and the law does not give either to the tenant or to the Rent Controller the power to determine where the landlord should personally reside. However, as has been observed by the learned Judge in Chambers, the circumstances of the present case are different.
4. In this case although the fact that two shops had been vacated in the same building during the pendency of the first appeal had been brought to the notice of the Court but in spite of availing opportunity to explain that the said shops were not suitable for the petitioner's need, the latter went to deny the fact that any shop had been vacated as alleged by the respondent. Although, the 'petitioner succeeded in getting an order in his favour, but nevertheless the First Appellate Court gave a notice for contempt of Court to the petitioner for making a false statement but subsequently the proceedings were dropped for technical reasons. But the petitioner failed to succeed before the learned Judge in the High Court, who took notice of the fact that the requirement to prove bona fides had not been established by the petitioner in view of such circumstances. The learned Judge appears to have taken a serious view of the fact that although opportunity had been provided to the petitioner to explain that the said shops failed to serve his requirements, but such opportunity was clearly lost by the latter when he resisted such attempt by the respondent to lead additional evidence in this regard.
5. Khawaja Muhammad Farooq, learned counsel for the respondents has invited our attention to the case of Abid Maood and others v. Dilshad Khan (1995 SCM R 146) wherein failure of the landlord to bring circumstances on record which could establish his bona fides as to the need of the premises required by him were found to be fatal to his case. Consequently, in our view, the view taken by the learned Judge in the High Court appears to be reasonable and the same does not appear to be open to interference by this Court.
' In the result the petition is dismissed and the order passed by the learned Judge in Chambers is upheld.