1991 PLP 1644 (CLC)

‑‑‑‑S. 13‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑‑Scope of appreciation of evidence in Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑ Courts below after appraisal of evidence on record concurrently were satisfied that premises m dispute was bona fide required by landlords‑‑‑No material misreading on record was found ‑‑‑Question raised by petitioners tenants related to appreciation of evidence which could not be undertaken by High Court in Constitutional jurisdiction. This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan calls in question the judgment dated 19‑2‑1989 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against order dated 20‑6‑1988 of the learned Rent Controller was dismissed, whereby the eviction of the petitioner from Shop No.102, Australasia Chowk, Railway Road, Lahore, was ordered. 2. 'Briefly, the facts are that respondents No.l and 2 filed on 19‑5‑1984 an application for ejectment of the petitioners under section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, from the property in dispute on the grounds of default, damage to property and personal need. The application was resisted by the petitioners.

3. Respondents landlords examined three witnesses in support of their ejectment application, namely, Muhammad Riaz‑ud‑Din (AW1), Khalid Roheel Alam (AW2) and Tariq Mahboob Alam (AW3). The petitioner produced two witnesses, Abdul Qaddus (RWl) and Muhammad Latif (RW2). In view of pleadings of the parties, issues framed thereunder and the evidence led by them, the learned Rent Controller accepted the ejectment application vide order dated 26‑6‑1988 on the ground of personal need. On appeal, the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, after re‑appreciating the evidence on record concurred with the finding of fact of the learned Rent Controller and upheld his order by dismissing the appeal on 19‑2‑1989.

4. Mr. Alamgeer, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the findings of the Courts below that the shop in dispute was needed by the respondents for their personal use in good faith is contrary to the assertion made in the ejectment application inasmuch as, in para‑graph 2 (i) of the ejectment application it was asserted that respondent No. 1 herein was not doing any business and wanted the premises for his own use and occupation in good faith for carrying on his own business, but no such statement was made by Tariq Mahboob Alam respondent No.2 herein while appearing as AW

3. On the contrary, Khalid Roheel Alam (AW 2 )deposed in his examination‑in‑chief that the shop in dispute was required by him for running a Restaurant. This witness also stated in the cross‑examination that the shop in dispute was required for bona fide personal need, whereas Muhammad Riaz while appearing as AWl stated in the examination‑in‑chief that the shop in dispute was required by the respondents‑landlords.

5. The Courts below were satisfied after appraisal of evidence on record that the shop in dispute was bona fide required by the contesting respondents. In any event, there in no material misreading on record. The question raised by learned counsel for the petitioners in fact relates to appreciation of evidence which cannot be undertaken in these proceedings.

6. It is next contended that the case of petitioners Nos. 2 to 8 who are minors has been seriously prejudiced, inasmuch as, the appointment of guardian ad‑litem was not made strictly in accordance with the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure. The plea raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is purely, technical. Substantial justice has been done in this case by appointing a guardian by the learned Rent Controller vide order dated 17‑6‑1986. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. The petitioners arc granted two months time to hand over vacant, possession of the disputed shop to the contesting respondents . H.B.T./F‑244/L. Petition dismissed.