1. ' This is an appeal against the order of District Judge, Peshawar, dated the 3rd of June, 1979, whereby he dismissed the appeal of Fazalur Rehman appellant and affirmed the order of ejectment passed against him by the Rent Controller, Peshawar, on the 18th of December, 1979.
2. ' The facts, so far as it is necessary to state them for the purpose of disposal of this appeal, are extremely few and simple. On the 13th of July, 1974, Ghulam Habib and his two brothers, namely, Ghulam Rasool and Ghulam Sarwar, applied to the Rent Controller, Peshawar, under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, (hereinafter called the Ordinance) for the ejectment of Fazalur Rehman from the property known as Plasco Hotel, Peshawar. The ejectment was sought on the sole ground that the property was required for the use of one of them, namely, Ghulam Rasool. The tenant respondent, while admitting the relationship of landlord and tenant, resisted the application on the averment that the property in question was not required for the bona fide use of one of the petitioners-landlords and the application was intended just to secure the enhancement of rent. Some other objections were also raised by him as a result of which the following issues were struck by the Rent Controller.
(1) Whether the petitioners have got a cause of action ?
(2) Whether the petitioners are estopped to bring the petition ?
(3) Whether this Court has got jurisdiction to try the petition ?
(4) Whether the petitioners intend to enhance the rent ?
(5) Whether the petition is liable to be rejected being vexatious and frivolous ?
(6) Whether the disputed property is required by the petitioners for their personal use ?
(7) Relief ?"
3. ' The parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions. Upon consideration of the evidence so produced, the Rent Controller found Issues Nos. 1, 3 and 6 in the affirmative while Issues 2, 4 and 5 were answered in the negative, and consequently, by his order dated 18th December, 1976, he directed the tenant to put the landlords in possession of the property within a period of two months. The tenant appealed against this order to the Appellate Authority, i,e, District Judge, Peshawar. The order of the 'Rent Controller was maintained by the District Judge who dismissed the appeal and directed the appellant to vacate the premises within two months. Against this decision, the tenant has preferred Regular Second Appeal to this Court.
4. ' On behalf of the appellant, two points were raised before me. In the first place it was said that the property in question was not required for the bona fide use of one of the landlords and the application for ejectment was instituted just to secure the enhancement of rent. This contention does not seem to be well founded. The case set up by the landlords was that one of them, namely, Ghulam Rasool, proposed to run a photographer's shop in the property in question. To support this position, Ghulam Rasool entered into the witness-box and stated on solemn affirmation that he was out of work and to earn his livelihood, he wanted to run a photographer's shop for which the premises in question were needed. This statement appears to be wholly true and nothing has been brought on the record to cast a doubt on its veracity. The Rent Controller accepted the testimony of Ghulam Rasool as a true one and in the circumstances, there can be no reason to differ with him. It may be observed that the Rent Controller saw the demeanour of the witnesses and was thus in a best position to assess the reliability of their evidence, I am satisfied that the evidence produced by the petitioners before the Rent Controller was sufficient to warrant the conclusion that the petitioners required the property for bona fide use and did not intend to secure the enhancement of rent.
5. The appellant is faced with a further difficulty arising out of the legal provisions dealing with Second Appeal. The point involved in this case was whether the landlords-petitioners required the property for the bona fide use of one of them. This question is a pure question of fact. It is well settled that the High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain second appeal on the ground of an erroneous finding of fact, however, gross and inexcusable the error may seem to be, unless there is an error in the procedure provided by law, which may possibly produce an error. Or defect in the decision of the case on the merits. No error in the procedure provided by law having taken place in the present case, I am constrained to hold that the present second appeal is not competent and this Court is not in a position to disturb the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority.
6. ' The Second point taken on behalf of the appellant was that the Rent Controller and the District Judge seem to have overlooked the fact that the tenant could be evicted from the property only if and when it was required for the personal use of all the landlords. It was argued that since the personal need in this case had reference only to one of the landlords, the Rent Controller was not competent to direct the ejectment of the tenant. It appears to me that this contention of the learned counsel is founded on a misconception. Section 13 (3) (a) (ii) of the Ordinance lays down that a landlord may apply to the Rent Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of a non-residential building if he requires it in good faith for his own use or for the use of any of his male children. It is needless to say that the rule running through all enactments is that unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context, words in the singular shall include the plural and vice versa. This rule when applied to the provisions of the Ordinance would naturally result in the conclusion that where there are more than one landlord, they would be competent to move the Rent Controller for the eviction of a tenant from a non- residential building. There is no provision in the Ordinance imposing a condition that in the case of more than one landlord a tenant would be liable to eviction only if and when the property is required for the joint use of all of them. I cannot in the circumstances, import such a condition into the Ordinance when the legislature in their wisdom refrained from imposing such a condition. I would, therefore, hold that where there are more than one landlord and they agree to the use of the property by one of them, the tenant occupying the same can be ordered to put the landlord in possession.
7. ' It follows from what has been stated above that there is no force in this appeal. I am, therefore, not persuaded to issue notice to the opposite-party and dismiss the appeal in limine.