' IJAZ-UL-HASSAN, Syed Muhammad Hasnain respondent No,1 herein, filed an application against Azizur Rehman petitioner herein under section 13 of Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, in the Court of Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Hangu, seeking ejectment of the latter from the shop in suit on the sole ground of personal requirement for his son Syed Wasiul Hasnain. The application was resisted on all grounds legal as well as factual and the same was stated to have been moved in order to enhance the rent. The parties were put to trial on as many as six issues. Upon consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Rent Controller by-its judgment and decree, dated 21-11-2000, accepted the application and directed the tenant to deliver possession of suit shop to the landlord within two months. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was preferred before Additional Sessions Judge, Hangu which was dismissed through judgment, dated 21-3-2002, which has given rise to the filing of instant Constitutional petition.
2. Mr. Mazullah Barakandi, Advocate, for the petitioner challenged the impugned order principally on the ground that the material on record to rebut the claim of the landlord has not been taken into consideration properly which has materially prejudiced the interest of the tenant. The learned counsel contended that the plea of personal need has not been proved satisfactorily and the material on file clearly demonstrates that ejectment application was filed with sole purpose to increase rent. The learned counsel contended that the landlord has not disclosed the nature of business to be started by his son and that the landlord owns numerous shops in main Bazar Hangu in addition to two shops adjacent to the shop in question. This circumstance, the learned counsel added, tends to suggest that suit shop is not needed in good faith for personal requirement of the so of the landlord. The submissions of the learned counsel are not tenable. We have gone through the entire material on record and we find that respondent-landlord has brought sufficient evidence in support of his claim. The learned counsel has not been able to point out any misreading or non-reading of evidence warranting interference by this Court in its extraordinary Constitutional jurisdiction.
The mere fact the son of the landlord, has not appeared in the witness-box or the nature of business has not been disclosed in ejectment application, by itself, cannot be considered a good ground to dislodge the claim of respondent-landlord. In Jumma Sher v. Sabz- Ali 1997 SCM R 1062 it was observed:-- "There is no legal requirement that the landlord in seeking ejectment of the tenant from a commercial premises on the ground of personal and bona fide requirement must disclose the nature of the business which he intended to start in the premises. Similarly, it is also not necessary for a landlord to prove his personal and bona fide requirement of commercial premises that he must possess experience in the trade of business which he intends 'to set up in the premises after eviction of his tenant. If this argument is accepted, then a landlord, however, genuinely, may require a commercial premises for his personal requirement cannot succeed if he does not possess experience of a, particular business or trade."
3. It is not denied that the statement of the landlord inspiring confidence regarding his bona fide use recorded on oath cannot be brushed aside if the same is found consistent with the application for ejectment and not shaken or disproved in cross-examination. In the present case, it has come in evidence that son of the respondent is jobless and the suit shop is required for his personal need.
The said portion of the statement of the landlord has not been rebutted. The question of personal requirement has been independently proved and issue regarding personal requirement has been rightly decided in favour of the landlord. No misreading or non-reading of evidence on the part of the Courts below has been shown. Thus, there is concurrent finding of fact, which cannot be upset in the exercise of powers under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973.
4. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, finding no substance in this writ petition, we dismiss the same in limine.