1989 PLP 1654 (SCMR)

ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of a learned Single .fudge of Lahore High Court dated 10‑4‑1989 dismissing a Constitution Petition Filed by the petitioner by which he sought to challenge the order of eviction passed against him by the Rent Controller which was upheld in appeal by the Additional District Judge, Lahore. The Rent Controller passed that order on an application filed by respondents‑landlords for petitioner's eviction from the demised premises on the ground that the first respondent bona fide requires the premises for his personal use. On the evidence produced by the parties, learned Rent Controller upheld the pica of the respondents and rejected tile defence plea set up by the petitioner. On appeal at petitioner's instance, learned Additional District Judge reappraised the evidence recorded in the case and reached tile following conclusion: "From the perusal of the testimony of the A.Ws. it is obvious that they, in my view, have succeeded in proving that the disputed shop is needed by them for their bona fide need to start some business for the son of Mst. Sardar Begum respondent No. 10, who supported this cause. Conversely, the R.Ws. produced by the appellant, in my view, have failed to substantiate the fact that the disputed shop was not required by the respondents‑landlords for their bona fide need to run some business. The learned Rent Controller has rightly observed that the apprehension of the tenant‑appellant that the landlords‑respondents will not occupy the disputed shop them selves, is safeguarded fly the law and he can apply for the restoration of the possession of the disputed shop under section 13(4) of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance. In view of the above discussion the findings of the learned Rent Controller on Issue No. 1 arc maintained. Petitioner challenged these orders in the Constitution petition before the High Court on the sole ground that both the learned Courts below have failed to appraise the evidence properly. This pica was rejected by the learned judge in the High Court in these words: "The concurrent finding of fact obviously cannot be scrutinized in exercise of extraordinary Constitutional jurisdiction especially when the same is based on evidence on record. It is not the case of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was any misreading or non‑reading of' any material piece of evidence. No. justification is made out for the interference in Constitutional jurisdiction. The writ petition is without force and is hereby dismissed in limine." Mr. Mhammad Aslam Chattha, learned counsel appearing in support of the petition for leave to appeal submits that the order of the learned Rent Controller and the judgment of the Additional District Judge arc bad in law as these suffer from non‑reading of material piece of evidence. We cannot accept this plea for tile reason that before the High Court it was not the case of the learned counsel who appeared for the petitioner that there was any misreading or non‑reading of any malarial piece of evidence. Indeed, in the memorandum of this petition it is not even pleaded that the learned Judge has wrongly observed in the impugned ingenerate that "it not the case of the learned I counsel for the petitioner that there was any misreading or non‑reading of any, material piece of evidence". We cannot, there, allow the petitioner it plea 1 which was not his plea before the High Court. For these reasons the petition is dismissed. M.A.K./A‑5II/S Leave refused.