' This Constitution petition calls in question the order, dated 24-2-2003, passed by the learned Rent Controller in Rent Application No.615 of 2000 and judgment, dated 27-4-2004, passed by the Appellate Court. The Rent Application was allowed on the ground of personal bona fide need of the Landlords and the default committed by the petitioners/tenants. The appeal filed by the tenants was dismissed and the order passed by the learned Rent Controller was upheld.
2. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner/tenant that the personal bona fide need has not been established by the respondents as the purpose for whin the premises were required has not been specifically mentioned in the Rent Application. It is further contended that a sum of Rs.1,50,000 was paid to the respondents as a `PAGRI' but against which no receipt was issued. If there was any default on the part of tenants the landlord should have adjusted the amount of rent from the amount of `PAGRU. In the alternate it is contended that since there are 5 shops and if the need of the respondents is bona fide then only they can be allowed to retain 2 shops while 3 shops should remain with the petitioner/tenant. In support of his contentions learned counsel cited number of cases. He placed reliance on the cases Mrs. Freni A. Cavina v. Mrs. Dhunmai Phiroze Dalal PLD 1991 SC 265, Messrs Pragma Leather Industries v. Mrs. Sadia Sajjad PLD 1996 SC 724, Muhammad Aslam v. Muhammad Aslam 1987 CLC 585, Shahnaz Begum v. Ikhlas Ahmad 1990 CLC 904, Mukhtar Ahmed v. Muhammad Saleem Bakhsi '1991 CLC 1047, Messrs Bara Imam Bara Trust v. Messrs Hakim & Co.
1992 CLC 2235 and Khalilur Rehman v. Mrs. Rashida 1993 CLC 2237.
3. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents submits that the premises were bonafidely required by the landlord. That the respondents appeared in the witness-box examined themselves on oath and their evidence remained consistent.
4. The submissions put forward have been considered, and the evidence has been scrutinized.
5. The evidence of the landlord/respondents is consistent on the point of personal bona fide use.
No inconsistency in the evidence could be pointed out to show that the act of landlords was tainted with malice. It is not necessary for the landlord to mention in the Rent Application the minute details about the business which he was going to establish. However, in the evidence it has been brought on record that the premises were required for establishing garments business. This stand of the landlord has not been challenged. Nothing has been brought in evidence in respect of alleged amount of `PAGRI'. The assertions which was denied by the respondents, was not substantiated by the petitioners by documentary or oral evidence. The landlord/respondents has however, admitted that a sum of Rs.50,000 was received by them as a security deposit to which the petitioners are entitled after they put the respondents in the vacant possession of the premises subject to deduction/adjustment of all arrears/dues.
6. Findings of facts have been recorded by two Courts below which are based on evidence.
Needless to emphasize that 4 petition cannot be equated with appeal, and Constitutional jurisdiction could not be allowed to be invoked as an additional remedy.
7. No interference in the extra- ordinary Constitutional jurisdiction is warranted in the circumstances as there is no illegality, infirmity, or perversity in the judgments. The petition, therefore, merits to be dismissed.
8. Before parting with the judgment, it must be stated that the case-law referred to by the petitioners has been examined. It has hardly been found to be relevant to the facts and circumstances' of the case.
9. However, in view of the fact that the petitioners are in possession of the premises since the year 1982, and using for business purpose, therefore, it will be just and proper to grant them reasonable time for winding up their business. In the circumstances, the petitioners are granted six (6) months time to retain the possession provided they regularly deposit the rent. The petitioners shall be required to vacate the premises in question and put the Landlord/respondents in possession by August, 2005, without any further proceedings.
10. The petition stands dismissed along with the listed application.