RASHID AZIZ KHAN, J.-- Facts in brief which necessitated the filing of present petition for special leave to appeal are that petitioner Mst. Yasmin Qadeer is owner of property No. 24, Riwaz Garden, Lahore which she ha rented to respondent No. 1, Dr. Akhtar Suhail Chughtai. The petitioner filed an ejectment petition on the ground of default, subletting the property, unauthorised construction and personal need for her son for doing business. The learned Rent Controller, Lahore, vide his judgment, dated 13.6.1995 dismissed the application. An appeal was filed wherein the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, vide his judgment, dated 30.7.1996, set aside the judgment of Trial Court and ordered ejectment on the ground of personal need and subletting. The tenant filed S.A.O, before the High Court in which a learned Judge in Chambers accepted the appeal, set aside the judgment of Additional District Judge and restored the order of Rent Controller. In the present petition, the petitioner has impugned the said judgment.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent caveators. We have noticed that ample evidence was produced to establish personal need as well as sub-letting. The ground of subletting was established by means of oral as well as documentary evidence. The contention that the property in question was residential, therefore, could not be used for commercial purposes, has been considered by us but we are not inclined to agree with the same.
In a similar situation, the question has already been dealt with and decided in PLD 1961 (W.P.)
Lahore 233 (Abdul Ghaffar v. Salamat Ullah) as well as NLR 1991 Civil 769 (Mst. Zubaida Sultana v. Dr. Ikhlaq Ahmad and others) and as such we are of the considered view that the judgment of learned Judge in Chambers cannot sustain, therefore, is liable to be set aside.
3. During arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner contended ( that that he would be satisfied if respondents are given some time to vacate the premises. The learned counsel for respondents has agreed to the offer and submitted that at least one year time be given to respondents. We are of the view that one year would be unjust. Keeping in view in situation and nature of business being conducted by respondents, we feel that six months' time would be just. The judgment of High Court is, accordingly, set side and it is ordered that respondents shall had over vacant possession to the petitioners within six months, without execution proceedings. Rent of premises during this period shall be regularly paid on each month. The petition stands disposed of, accordingly.