2018 CLCN 89 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Full text

ABDUR REHMAN VS Rana FEROZ UD DIN 2017 MLD 605, S. 13(4)--- eviction of tenant---Personal bona fide need of landlord---Scope---Non-appearance of son of landlord (for whom premises was needed) as witness---Effect---Availability of other shops owned by landlord---Effect---Petitioner/tenant contended that son of landlord, for whom personal need was claimed, was not produced in evidence before Rent Tribunal and that other shops of landlord were also lying vacant in the subject premises---Respondent/landlord contended that appearance of his son was not essential and it was his prerogative to select any of his shop for personal occupation---Validity---Landlord had stated that his son was jobless and he intended to establish business for his son in suit shop and witnesses of landlord were also consistent on said point---Petitioner himself admitted in the cross-examination that all the shops of landlord were in occupation of some other tenants, meaning thereby that there was no shop vacant for occupation, use and business of the son of landlord---If after order of eviction, son would not occupy the suit shop within one month or would re-let within two months then in terms of S. 13(4) of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, petitioner could apply to Rent Controller for restoration of possession of the shop---Non-appearance of son of landlord in witness box was neither essential nor fatal to the petition for eviction---No illegality or infirmity having been noticed in the impugned judgments passed by two Courts below, constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.