2006 PLP 1725 (MLD)

MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J.

Briefly stated the facts relevant for the decision of the present petition are that Gulzar Hussain, respondent No.1, filed an ejectment petition, against the petitioners, seeking their eviction from the property in dispute, on the grounds of personal need and default in payment of rent since July, 2001, before the learned Rent Controller, which was resisted by the petitioners by filing the .written reply, inter alia, denying the relationship of landlord and tenant and pleading that they are owners in possession of the disputed property. The learned Rent Controller framed the necessary issues, recorded the evidence of the parties and accepted the ejectment petition, vide order, dated 7-11-2002. The petitioners filed an appeal and the cases was remanded to the learned trial Court for the fresh decision of the case. In post remand proceedings, the learned Rent Controller heard the arguments and ultimately dismissed the ejectment petition, vide order, dated 4-4-2003. Respondent No.1 filed an appeal, which was allowed and resultantly the ejectment petition was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, vide judgment, dated 21-7-2003, hence the present constitutional petition.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned judgment is result of misreading and non-reading of evidence on record and that the learned Additional District Judge has not taken into consideration the pendency of the litigation between the parties.

3. So far as the only contention raised by the learned counsel, suffice it to say that although it has been urged that the impugned judgment suffers from misreading and non-reading of evidence, yet the learned counsel, despite his best efforts, could not point out any portion of the evidence, which has either been misread or non-read by the appellate authority.

4. From the examination of the impugned judgment, I do not find that the same is either arbitrary or without jurisdiction or passed in excess of jurisdiction by the appellate authority. Even during the arguments, the learned counsel could not point out any jurisdictional defect/error in the impugned judgment. There is no cavil with the proposition that the appellate authority has the jurisdiction to decide the matter and it has decided the cause in accordance with law, that too after properly taking into consideration the record of the case and law on the subject. It may be noted that in exercise of its constitutional this Court has only to see whether a Tribunal or Court has acted without jurisdiction or violated the statute or law laid down by the superior Courts. This Court, in such like cases, is not called upon to re-appraise the evidence and the writ petitions are not to be decided in the manner appeals are to be heard or/and decided. In this regard, Muhammad Sharif and another v. Muhammad Afzal Sohail and others (PLD 1981 SC 246) and Abdul Rehman Bajwa v. Sultan and 9 others (PLD 1981 SC 522) can be referred.

5. It has been held in Secretary to the Government of the Punjab, Forest Department, Punjab, Lahore through Divisional Forest Officer v. Ghulam Nabi and 3 others (PLD 2001 SC 415) that when the forums available in hierarchy under the relevant law had decided all the controversial questions on the basis of record and in accordance with law, then the High Court should not interfere in the matter and it could not go into the questions of fact in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction. It has further been held in the afore-noted judgment of Secretary to the Government of the Punjab, Forest Department that the High Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction cannot re-appraise the evidence and come to its own independent findings whereas findings of facts have been recorded by authority below after giving good reasons.

6. Applying the aforesaid yardstick and the law declared by the apex Court, I do not find that the learned appellate authority has flouted the provisions of law or failed to follow the law relating thereto as laid down by the superior Courts or acted without jurisdiction. As noted above, even the learned counsel could not point out any misreading or non-reading of evidence on record.

7. In view of the above, I am not inclined to exercise my constitutional jurisdiction in the matter, which is otherwise discretionary and equitable. For the foregoing reasons the writ petition is devoid of any merits and the impugned judgment does not call for any interference by this Court, thus, petition stands dismissed in limine. M.I./M-150/L Petition dismissed.