1989 PLP 1847 (SCMR)

GHULAM MUJADDID, J.‑‑Gul Muhammad and Waris Hussain have filed two separate petitions for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court Peshawar, dated 10th April, 1989. Nasir Ahmad respondent landlord riled application with the Rent Controller Peshawar for ejectment of Gul Muhammad (petitioner in Civil Petition No.115‑P of 1989). The grounds were bona fide personal need for the landlord and his two sons and reconstruction of the building of which the disputed shop is a part of that. The application was contested. The Rent Controller framed necessary issues and by his order, dated 21st November, 1987 dismissed the application. Nasir Ahmad appealed against the order of the Rent Controller. The Additional District Judge Peshawar vide judgment, dated 5th December, 1988 accepted the appeal. Gul Muhammad was given two months time to hand over the possession. Gul Muhammad thereafter invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. This writ petition was dismissed by means of impugned judgment. Somewhat identical are the facts pertaining to the petition of Waris Hussain (namely Civil Petition No.116‑P of 1989). In this case also the Rent Controller Peshawar dismissed the application for ejectment by the landlord vide order, dated 21st November, 1987. On appeal the order of the Rent Controller was set aside by the Additional Sessions Judge Peshawar by judgment, dated 5th December, 1988. Thereafter his Constitutional petition was dismissed by means of impugned judgment. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners in both the petitions at some length. The contentions raised by learned counsel are common to both the petitions. His main emphasis is that the application filed by the respondent for a sanction of the Municipal Committee Peshawar did not specifically include the number of the shops which according to the learned counsel meant that there was no valid sanction. It was next contended that the plea of bona fide personal need had not been established by unimpeachable evidence. These very contentions were raised before the High Court and were repelled. The High Court gave sound reasons for rejecting both the above referred points. Evidence of Imdad Hussain was taken note of. The following observation would show that both the aforesaid grounds were duly met by the, judgment of the High Court in the case of Gul Muhammad petitioner in Civil Petition No.1 15‑P of 1989: "The landlord had thus proved his plea of requirement in good faith for reconstruction of the suit premises. The second ground of bona fide personal need was equally established from the statement on oath of the landlord which stood unrebutted." In the case of Waris Hussain petitioner in Civil Petition No.116‑P of 1989 the High Court observed as follows: "The landlord had thus sufficiently discharged the burden proof pertaining to his plea of requirement of the suit premises for reconstruction reasonably and in good faith. The second ground of bona fide personal need was equally established from the statement on oath of the landlord which stood unrebutted." For the satisfaction of the learned counsel we have also examined the relevant evidence. The statement of Imdad Hussain and that of the landlord fully proved the two grounds taken by the respondent. The High Court (in both the cases) was of the following view: 'A1orcover this is a Constitutional petition and unless any illegality, material irregularity, wrong or illegal exercise of jurisdiction, misreading or non‑reading of evidence resulting in miscarriage of justice are pointed out, the decision of the special forums created under the Rent Restriction Ordinance cannot be interfered with". For the foregoing reasons we do not think these are fit cases for the grant of leave. Both the petitions are accordingly dismissed. A.A./G‑209/S Petitions dismissed.