1983 PLP 2446 (CLC)

(4) What is the effect of preliminary objection No. 3 raised in the reply of petition ? O. P. R. (5) Whether the application is defective and mala fide, if so its effect ? O. P. R. (6) Whether the house .in dispute comes under the definition of sche duled building, if so its effect ? O. P. R. (7) Whether the respondent is a delaulter ? O. P. A. (8) Whether the respondent has impaired the value of the house in dispute ? O. P. A. (9) Whether the petitioner requires the house in dispute for his bona fide personal use O. P. A. (10) Whether the petitioner wants to rebuild the house in dispute, if so, its effect ? O. P. R. (11) Relief. Before learned Rent Controller issues Nos. 1, 3 and 4 were not pressed by the tenant. Issues Nos. 2 and 5 were found against the landlord. Issue No. 6 was decided against the tenant, issue No. 7 was decided against the landlord and it was held that the tenant was not a defaulter, issues Nos. 8, 9 and 10 were decided against the landlord. Resultantly, the petition for ejectment was dismissed on 15th April, 1981. Aggrieved by the order of the Rent Controller, Haji Rehmatullah filed appeal. After hearing the parties, the learned Additional District Judge, Multan referred to the judgment of the learned Rent Controller on issues Nos. 2. 5, 9 and 10, He found that the house in dispute was required for bona fide personal use and the landlord respondent No. 2 therein wanted to reconstruct the same. He consequently, set aside the judgment of the learned Rent Controller and allowed the application directing the tenant to vacate the house and hand over its possession to the landlord. Hence this petition.

3. Before me, the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised three points :-- (i) that since there was no approval of the plan for the reconstruction of the disputed house at the time of filing the application, the Additional District Judge had no jurisdiction to decide issue No. 10 in favour of respondent No. 2 herein ; (ii) that the requirement for personal use has not been proved. The evidence led by the landlord respondent was not worth reliance. Haji Rehmatul.lah the landlord having avoided to appear as witness, was not entitled to ejectment on the ground of his requirement for personal use and that the evidence has been misread by the learned Additional District Judge, and (iii) that the property in dispute was jointly occupied by the petitioner and his wife and they were running a joint Clinic and as such the application for ejectment was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.

4. After hearing the learned counsel and going through the material placed on the record, I find that as for point No. (i), as admitted by the. learned counsel the plan was approved during pendency of the ejectment proceedings and as such the irregularity, if any, stood removed and. was not available at the time of the decision of the ejectment application the Rent Controller. There is, thus, no force in this point. So far as point No: (ii) is concerned, I find that respondent has led evi dence to prove his requirement for personal use. The landlord is admit tedly living in a rented, house, he does not own any other house Khane wal and as such requirement of bona fide personal use is very much appa rent on the face of the circumstances. It has not been denied that the respondent is an old man and his attorney has appeared as a witness and has deposed about the requirement of the respondent for his personal use. This is an issue of fact. The learned Additional District Judge fully applied his mind to the evidence brought on the record and has given reasons in support of his conclusion arrived at by trim. I am afraid that this Court while sitting in writ jurisdiction? cannot go into the question of weight to be attached to the evidence brought on the record, particularly on the question of fact. For these reasons point No. (ii) fads As for point No. (iii), I find that the objection as to the non-joinder of the neces sary parties, the subject-matter of issue No. 1 was not pressed before the Courts below, it has clearly been stated by them that issue No. 1, i. e. "Whether the application is bad for non-joinder of necessary, parties" was not pressed before them and ' as such it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to agitate this point-at this stage. Point No. (iii) is answered accordingly.

5. I find that both the parties have led evidence to prove and rebut issues Nos. 9 and

10. The attorney of the landlord also entered in the witness box. Both these issues are almost issues of the facts. It is well established that this Court while sitting in writ jurisdiction, cannot go into the question of the appreciation of evidence and the weight to be attached to it. The learned Additional District Judge had an authority to reverse the findings of the learned Rent Controller on issues Nos. 9 and 1:

0. No material misreading has been pointed out. I find that the appellate author ity has not flouted any provisions of the law and has not disregarded the case law laid down by the 'o superior Courts. For what has been stated above it is not a fit case for interference by this Court in its writ jurisdiction. The petition is accordingly dismissed in limine. K.M. A. petition dismissed.