1. ' MUNIB AHMED KHAN, J.---This Constitutional petition has been filed against the order dated 24-2- 2006 passed by. The Additional District Judge, Hyderabad in F.R.A. No,104 of 2004 whereby he has dismissed the appeal of the applicant and maintained the ejectment order dated 30-10-2004 passed by 2nd Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
2. ' In brief the respondent filed eejctment application against the petitioner for his ejectment from Shop No,3 in property bearing No,D-22.19 Resham Gali. The said application was filed by the respondent as co-owner and landlord within the meaning of Sindh Rented. Premises Ordinance, 1979 on the ground of default alleging therein that the petitioner in November, 2001 agreed to purchase the said tenement under sale agreement but he failed to materialize the sale agreement and continued as tenant and paid rent uptil June, .2002 and thereafter committed default at Rs,700 per month till July, 2003 i.e the date of ejectment application. In spite of demand the petitioner/opponent denied the allegation of default and stated that rent up to April, 2003 was paid for which rent receipts were issued while rent for May to June 2003 was sent through money order but was refused by the respondent, therefore, it was deposited in Court. It was further submitted that the premises is not required for personal need as the respondent is doing business of crockery and jewelry in a cabin.
3. ' The learned Rent Controller framed following issues:--
(1) Whether the opponent is defaulter in payment of rent from July, 2002?
(2) Whether the case premises is required by the applicant for his personal bona fide use?
4. ' Both the above issues were decided by the Rent Controller in favour of the respondent. In appeal the learned Additional District Judge also adopted above issues as points for consideration and concurred with the findings of the Rent Controller.
5. ' Mr. Jhamat Jethanand, learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the judgment in appeal on the ground that Muhammad Naeem, who has filed the rent case, could not maintain the rent proceedings as he was not co-owner and that the receipts for different period issued by him shows through their book number that Muhammad Naeem was manipulating and arranging something and those receipts which are not in sequence would not have been admitted and the Rent Controller would have drawn adverse finding against the landlady. He has further submitted that since the petitioner had entered into sale agreement with the mother of Muhammad Naeem in which time was not essence of the contract, therefore, that sale agreement would have been finalized but Muhammad Naeem wrongly filed rent proceedings.
6. ' On the other hand Mr. Shamsuddin Memon, learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that Muhammad Naeem is a part and parcel of transaction as he has even signed the sale agreement along with his mother and there is admission on the part of the opponent that Muhammad Naeem is taking rent and has withdrawn rent from the Court. Learned counsel has also pointed out paras. 3 and 4 of the affidavit in evidence which shows that the property originally belongs to father of Muhammad Naeem. Paras 3 and 4 are reproduced as under:- "3. That I am one of the co-sharers and landlord in respect of Property No,D-2219 Resham Gali Hyderabad which consists of three shops and one Cabin on ground floor and upper storey is for residential use, where I am residing with my family.
4. That Shop No,3 in the 41) ove said building was let out by late Muhammad Yaseen my father to one late Jameeluddin father of opponent in the year 1973 at Rs,150 per month, tenancy started from 10-7-1993, necessary agreement was executed between the parties. Original agreement is attached herewith and is marked Exh...... "
7. ' Mr. Memon has further submitted that chapter of sale was over longtime before when petitioner failed to pay and it has been proved in the record of 2nd Appeal No,4 of 2006 that petitioner forged receipts of 4 lacs and 2 lacs and again here he forged rent receipts to absolve himself from the default.
8. ' Mr. Shamsuddin Memon in support of his argument has cited PLD 1976 Kar. 966, PLD 1986 Kar. 184, 1991 M LD 1340, PLD 1991 SC 242 on the ground of default while 1985 CLC 2552, 1987 CLC 1146, 1988 CLC 802 and 1991 CLC 566 on the ground of personal bona fide need and he has also cited 2003 CLC 278 on the ground that concurrent findings of the facts in ejectment proceedings cannot be disturbed in the constitutional jurisdiction.
9. After hearing the arguments and perusal of record, I find that both the Courts were of the opinion that the petitioner managed some false receipts for the period of default i,e, from July, 2002 to April, 2003. These receipts have been discarded. Learned trial Court has given his findings on these receipts in detail while the Additional District Judge has also elaborated those findings in his discussion at Point No,1 which, shows that the petitioner submitted forged receipts in Court. It has also come on record in 2nd Appeal No,4 of 2006 that petitioner in that case also forged two receipts of Rs,4,00,000 and Rs,2,00,000, therefore, his right in respect to sale agreement vanished.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner failed to satisfy in respect of ground of default as the burden was upon the petitioner who failed to discharge, hence finding in this respect against him is correct. The citation submitted by Mr. Shamsuddin Memon are also relevant on the point. On the issue of personal need both the courts have given their findings in favour of the respondent as no adverse evidence was brought by the petitioner against the respondent and the statement on oath given by the respondent is also not rebutted.
11. ' In the circumstances, there is nothing to solicit interference of this Court in the writ jurisdiction, therefore, this petition is dismissed with cost along with listed-application.