P L D 2001 Peshawar 129 (PLP)

TALAAT QAYYUM QURESHI, J.

The landlords/respondents Nos. l to 7 filed eviction petition on 1-6-2000 in the "Court of learned Rent Controller, Charsadda for eviction of. the petitioner/tenant from the shop boundaries of which have been mentioned in the eviction petition situated at Amjad Shopping Plaza Shabqadar Fort, Tehsil and District Charsadda on the ground of personal need. Eviction petition was resisted by the petitioner/tenant by filing written statement. The learned Rent Controller after framing issues, recording pro and contra evidence of the parties accepted the eviction petition and directed the petitioner/tenant to vacate the shop in question within 15 days vide judgment and order dated 16-9-2000. Feeling aggrieved of the said judgment and order the petitioner/respondent filed appeal in the Court of learned District Judge, Charsadda which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 18-12-2000. The petitioner/tenant has now filed writ petition in hand assailing the judgments and orders of the Courts below.

2. Mr. Javed A Khan, the learned counsel representing the petitioner argued that respondents had executed rent deed on 8-5-2000 and immediately thereafter on 25-5-2000 filed eviction petition against the petitioner which on the face of it is based on mala fide.

3. It was also argued that the respondents have failed to prove that shop in question was required for their personal use and the learned Rent Controller as well as District Judge, Charsadda failed to appreciate the evidence properly while passing the impugned judgments and orders.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record annexed with the writ petition.

5. So far as the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents had executed rent deed on 8-5-X000 with the petitioner/tenant and brought eviction petition on 25-5-2000 which on the face of it is based on mala fide has no force at all. The perusal of the deed dated 8-5-2000 shows that the same has neither been signed/executed by the landlords/respondents nor affirmed by them. On the contrary Taza Gul (P.W.1) in cross-examination has stated that: This document was also placed on record subject to objection of the counsel for the respondents /landlords about its admissibility in evidence. The petitioner/tenant has admitted execution of rent deed dated 4-1-1996 and notice issued by landlords in which they had clearly mentioned that the shop in question was required for their personal need.

6. So far as the other argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondents/landlords have failed to prove that the shop in question is required for their personal bona fide need and both the Courts below have misread the evidence in this regard, this argument has also no force. Not only the learned Rent Controller after appreciating the evidence available on record came to the conclusion that the shop in question is required by the landlord but the learned Appellate Court also on reappraisal of evidence has concurred with the findings of the learned Rent Controller. This Court does not sit as the Court of Appeal and cannot decide whether evidence sufficed for conclusion arrived and is not at all obliged to go into the merits of the case de novo reappraise and assess evidence on question of personal need of the landlord. Wisdom in this respect has been sought from M/s. Muhammadia Medical Hall, Khan Arm Dealers through Kurshid Alam v. Mahmood-ul-Hassan and 3 others NLR 1982 SCJ.

23. We while exercising our Constitutional jurisdiction cannot disturb the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts below on reappraisal of evidence unless it is shown that the Courts below either misread the evidence or perversely appreciated the evidence. Merely because of fresh appraisal of the evidence this Court would reach a different conclusion is no ground to disturb the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts below: Moreover, subsection (4) of section 13 of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 provides full protection to the petitioner/tenant. In case the landlords fail to occupy the shop in question within one month of the date of obtaining possession, the tenant who has been affected may apply to the Controller for an order directing that the possession should be restored to him.

7. We have not been able to find out any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgments/orders and would not like to interfere into the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts of competent jurisdiction. Resultantly, the writ petition in hand alongwith C.M. is dismissed in limine. Q.M.H./M.A.K./284/P Petition dismissed.