1. ' The petitioner through this Constitution petition has called in question the two concurrent findings passed by Rent Controller Karachi South and IIIrd Additional District Judge, Karachi South, dated 14- 12-1995 and 13-5-2002 respectively.
2. ' Briefly the facts of the case are that landlady respondent No,1 filed an ejectment application under section 15 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 against the petitioner for his ejectment from Flat No,1 situated on ground floor, Wadiwala Manzil, constructed on plot No,O.T.1/95 Parmanand Lane near Fazal Masjid Mithadar Karachi.
3. ' The ejectment was sought on two grounds i.e, personal bona fide need and conversion of the premises from residential to commercial.
4. The parties led theirs evidence and the. Rent Controller after evaluating the evidence allowed the ejectment application and ordered the petitioner to vacate the premises within 60 days from the date of order.
5. ' Being dissatisfied by the ejectment order, the petitioner filed First Regular Appeal No,48 of 1996 before this Court. During pendency of appeal, the petitioner moved an application under section 21(3) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 which was allowed and the petitioner was given opportunity to lead his evidence.
6. ' Pursuant to that order the petitioner filed affidavits of his son/attorney Zainul Abideen and Muhammad Zakir Moosani in this Court. They were cross-examined by the Advocate of respondent . No,l.
7. ' After that the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 was amended and the F.R.A. Was transferred to the District Court for disposal.
8. ' It was heard by learned IIIrd Additional District Judge Karachi South who dismissed the appeal of petitioner on 13-5-2002. The aforesaid two concurrent findings have been challenged through this Constitutional petition.
9. ' It is contended by Mr. M. G. Dastagir that the learned Rent Controller did not properly consider the evidence adduced by petitioner in this Court.
10. ' He argued that several flats of respondent were lying vacant on various floors of the building which have been let out during the pendency of rent case. The ages of respondent No,1 and her husband were not so old and that they could easily use up stairs for first or second floor. The learned counsel further urged that the demised premises are being used for commercial purposes for the last about 34 years much prior to the purchase of building by respondent No,1 but she never raised any objection. The principle of estoppel therefore, comes in her way. Reliance is placed upon the cases of Mrs. Ruby Miso v. Mrs. Kaniz Fatima and others 1990 CLC 1320; Muhammad Sadiq v.
11. Abdul Ghani and others 1991 CLC 1398; Dost Muhammad v. Mst. Ramzan Bibi and 9.Others 1990 M LD 1667; Muhammad Ilyas v. Hussaini 2000 M LD 160 and Muhammad Lehrasab Khan v. Mst. Aqeel-un- Nisa and 5 others 2001 SCM R 338.
12. ' Mr. Zafar Iqbal Datt argued that the respondent No,1 and her husband were incapacitated to climb over the stairs of third floor of the building, therefore, they have shifted to the house of their daughter. It is submitted that medical certificates of their illness and infirmity were produced and the doctor was examined in support of report. The petitioner has admitted that the marriages of their children took place in the said premise after the purchase of building by the respondent No,1.
13. He asserted that the demised premises have been converted into commercial after the purchase of it by the respondent No,
1. He submitted that the tenant cannot dictate the landlord to occupy or reside at a particular place. It is the choice and Will of landlord to occupy the premises which is suitable and comfortable to him. The pleas of landlady raised in ejectment application and the depositions are consistent, therefore, the ejectment has rightly been ordered by the two Courts below. Both the Courts have evaluated the evidence and there is no irregularity or illegality in the orders so that the Constitution petition could be maintained. The reliance is placed upon the cases of Iqbal Book Depot and others v. Khatib Ahmed and 6 others 2001 SCM R 1197; Haroon Kassam and another v. Azam Suleman Madha PLD 1990 SC 394 and Khalifa Fateh Muhammad v. Ahmed Nasir Khan 1988 SCM R 689.
14. ' The record shows that petitioner had examined her son/attorney Zainul Abedin and Muhammad Zakir Moosani in this Court to substantiate his pleas but the depositions of witnesses of petitioner are of no help to her. They have reiterated the same contentions which were already on record and were considered by two Courts.
15. The evidence adduced by the landlady is consistent to the pleas raised in ejectment application.
16. No illegality or irregularity has been pointed out in the judgments of two Courts below so as to attract the Constitutional jurisdiction. The judgments of Rent Controller as well as Appellate Court are justified and well founded. They have evaluated and assessed the evidence adduced by the parties. Admittedly the marriages in families of petitioners had taken place in the demised premises after it was purchased by the respondent No,l. The petitioner has thereafter, converted it into commercial. The respondent No,1 and her husband are of old age and are infirm. It is the prerogative and choice of landlady to occupy the place of their suitable accommodation.
17. ' For these reasons the petition was dismissed in limine vide order dated 5-8-2003, with the directions to deliver the vacant possession to respondent after 90 days of the order, subject to payment of rent. These are the reasons, for the same.