' EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, J.--- The suit Shop bearing No,3926-C was the ownership of the Settlement Department which was occupied by the Municipal Committee, respondent No,2 herein, as a tenant on payment of rent. Subsequently, pursuant to a declaratory decree this property was purchased by Abdul Majeed, predecessor-in-interest, of the petitioners in an open auction, vide PTD dated 6- 1-1986. Since the Municipal Committee shifted the octroi post to another place, it after vacating and bifurcating it into two parts let out to Ghulam Shabeer, respondent No,1 in W.P. No,98 of 2002 and Ashiq Muhammad, respondent No,1 in W.P. No,99 of 2002, now succeeded by his legal heirs. So long as the shop was owned by the Settlement Department, the Municipal Committee had been paying its rent thereto. Later on when it was allotted to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners and on his demise it devolved on them, they instituted two separate applications for ejectment of their tenants in the Court of the learned Rent Controller. When the respondents on being served, denied the relationship of landlord and tenant, the learned trial Court after framing preliminary issue, recording evidence and hearing the parties, dismissed both the applications, vide his orders, dated 7-3-2000. When their appeals against the aforesaid orders in the Court of the learned Additional District Judge also met the same fate, vide his orders, dated 19-3-2002, the petitioners preferred the petitions mentioned above to assail the impugned finding. As both the petitions involve identical questions of law and fact, they are disposed of by this single judgment.
2. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that it is not disputed on the record that the suit shop was the ownership of the Settlement Department; that respondent No,2 was occupying it as a tenant on payment of rent and that it after vacating and bifurcating it into two parts, let it out to the respondents. He next argued that when the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, purchased the property in dispute in an open auction, he and then the petitioners on his demise became its landlords, therefore, denial of relationship of landlord and tenant does not lie in the mouth of the respondents. The learned counsel by referring to the pendency of a suit between the petitioners and respondents Nos.3 to 10 contended that it will not have any bearing on the fate of these applications as each of them is to be decided on its own. Merits, therefore. The learned Courts below by ignoring the material on the record wrongly dismissed the application of the petitioners for ejectment of the respondents. The learned counsel to support his contention placed reliance on the cases of Iqbal and 6 others v. Mst. Rabia Bibi and another PLD 1991. SC 242 and'Ashraf Kiayani and others v.. Mst. Hajira Bibi and others 1999 M LD 2821 (Lahore).
3. As against that, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents in both the petitions argued that where there was nothing on the record to show the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the petitions were rightly dismissed. If, at all, he urged in the alternative, the petitioners became owners, as alleged by them, they could not have filed ejectment petitions without giving notice under section 13-A of the Rent Restriction Ordinance.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No,1 in both the petitions, argued that when it has been admitted by the petitioners in their evidence that respondent No,1 in W.P. No,98 of 2002 and respondent No,1 in W.P. No,99 of 2002 are occupying the demised premises on behalf of Municipal Committee, it is a proof of the fact that such relationship does not exist between them, therefore, both the applications and appeals there against have rightly been dismissed, particularly when identity of the property is also doubtful and a suit in this behalf is pending in the Civil Court.
5. We have gone through the record carefully and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
6. It is not disputed on the record that the shop mentioned above was the ownership of the Settlement Department; that it was purchased by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners in an open auction, vide P.T.D. Referred to above; that so long as the shop in question was the ownership of the Department, the Municipal Committee was occupying it as a tenant on payment of rent and that the Municipal Committee after vacating and bifurcating it into two let it out to Ghulam Shabir, respondent No,1 in W.P. No,98 of 2002 and Ashiq Muhamthad, respondent No,1 in W.P. No,99 of 2002, therefore, the interference that it was allotted to respondent No,2 Exh.P.W.2/R-4 runs counter to the record and seems to be a corollary of misreading and non-reading of evidence. It, when read with open eyes, it does not appear to be an allotment order but a letter written by the then. Chairman of the Municipal Committee to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner requesting him to transfer the shop in question to respondent No,2. It is strange and even surprising to note that the learned Additional District Judge while upholding the finding of the learned Rent Controller did not care to see that it being a result of gross misreading and non-reading of evidence was not sustainable, notwithstanding the fact that he being a Presiding Officer of the first Court of appeal and final Court of fact was required to satisfy his judicial conscience before concurring therewith that it was based on proper appraisal of oral as well as documentary evidence.
7. The fact that a civil suit was pending between the petitioners and respondents other than respondents Nos.1 and 2, will not furnish a justification for dismissing and thereby short-circuiting the matter when each of the proceedings being independent of each other is to be decided on its own merits. The judgment in the case of Iqbal and 6 others v. Mst. Rabia Bibi and another (supra) would be quite relevant in this behalf. When the impugned finding, prima facie, suffers from infirmities and lapses of this type, we are afraid, it cannot be maintained even though it is concurrent.
8. Now the question crops up whether this Court in the exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction can interfere with a finding of fact which is based on misreading, non-reading of evidence or wrong assumption of law and fact? Our answer to this question on the strength of the judgment rendered in the case of Muhammad Lehrasab Khan v. Mst. Aqeel-un-Nisa and 5 others 2001 SCM R 338, shall be an emphatic yes wherein the Honourable Supreme Court after considering a string of its judgment held as under:-- "There is no cavil with the proposition that ordinarily the High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction would not undertake to reappraise the evidence in rent matters to disturb the finding of facts but it would certainly interfere if such findings are found to be based on non-reading or misreading of evidence, erroneous assumptions of facts, misapplication of law, excess or abuse of jurisdiction and arbitrary exercise of powers. In appropriate cases of special jurisdiction, where the District Court is the final Appellate Court, if it reverse the finding of the trial Court on the grounds not supported by material on record, the High Court can interfere with it by issuing writ of certiorari to correct the wrong committed by the Appellate Authority."
9. In the case of Rahim Shah v. Chief Election Commissioner PLD 1973 SC 24, the Honourable Supreme Court while dealing with a similar aspect of the case held as under:- "The scope of interference in the High Court is, therefore, limited to the inquiry whether the Tribunal has in doing the act or undertaking the proceedings acted in accordance with law. If the answer be in the affirmative the High Court will stay its hands and will not substitute its own findings for the findings recorded by the Tribunal. Cases of no evidence, bad faith, misdirection or failure to follow judicial Procedure, etc. Are treated as acts done without lawful authority and vitiate the act done or proceedings undertaken by the Tribunal on this ground. Where the High Court is of opinion that there is no evidence proper to be considered by the inferior Tribunal in support of some point material to the conviction or order, certiorari will be granted."
10. In the case of Assistant Collector v. Al-Razak Synthetic (Pvt.) Std. 1998 SCM R 2514, the Honourable Supreme Court re-affirmed this view in the following words:-- "In our view, it was not proper on the part of the learned Judges of the Division Bench of the High Court to have decided the above technical questions without getting first the decision of the Central Board of Revenue on the basis of the material which the parties might have produced before it in support of their claims. The High Court generally does not investigate disputed questions of fact in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction. However, it can interfere with a finding of fact if it is founded on no evidence or is contrary to the evidence on record or the inferences drawn therefrom are not in accordance with law."
11. Having thus, considered in the light of the foregoing discussion and the dictums quoted above, we allow these petitions, set aside the impugned orders and send the case back to the learned Rent Controller for decision afresh after due consideration of the entire material on the record. As these are old cases, they be decided within a period of 3 months. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Rent Controller/Senior Civil Judge, D.I. Khan on 15-10-2004. However, none of these observations will in any way have bearing on the civil suit pending between the parties.