1. ' SALMAN ANSARI, J.---The petitioner Mst. Mussarat Begum w/o Abdullah being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 16-10-2002 passed by the 1st Addl. District Judge, Karachi in F.R.A.
2. No, 225/2001 Mst. Mussarat Begum v. Muhammad Sultan and another, whereby the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed, hence this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973.
3. ' The petitioner's case is that she is the landlady of property being two Shops No,G-1 on Plot No, SOL- B/196 Totaram Building, Mirza Khalid Baig Road, Karachi, but only one number partition being made privately making it into two shops. That by a tenancy agreement dated 3-5-1994 the said premises were let out to Muhammad Sultan the respondent No,1 on payment of Rs,3,500 p.m. Copy of Tenancy Agreement is attached. The tenant defaulted in payment of rent from November 1994 and sublet the premises to respondent No,2 Muhammad Ashraf on payment of Rs,5000 as rent.
4. ' The petitioner complained to the SDM Jamshed Quarters, the respondent No,2 approached the High Court, as the SDM disposed of the case holding that parties could approach the competent Court of law, the High Court hence disposed of the matter as infructuous.
5. ' Meanwhile the petitioner had filed an application under section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 to which the respondent No,2 filed written statement. The petitioner filed affidavit through her husband/attorney stating she was exclusive owner, the attorney was cross examined, the respondent filed affidavit and was cross examined. It is the petitioner's case that other than photographs the respondent No,2 has no other document to show his entitlement to possession or to his claim of ownership. However the petitioner had brought on record a registered conveyance deed dated 28-1-1990 executed by one Haji Abdul Rasheed in favour of the petitioner, electricity bills to prove ownership and identity of property.
6. ' Learned counsel for petitioner has argued that two Courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence produced by the petitioner and the title documents even the respondent No,1 did not file written statement, the respondent No,2 was merely a sub-lettee and he was illegally occupying the premises of the petitioner without paying any rent and denied the title of the petitioner, hence he was liable to be ejected from the premises. Learned counsel has contended that the orders of the Courts below be set aside.
7. ' Learned counsel for respondent No,2 has argued that petitioner's attorney has admitted to being in possession of the premises from Haji Abdul Rasheed in the year 1989 and was in possession since that period, he was the owner of the premises in his possession and the shop of the petitioner was adjacent to his shop. The application before the Rent Controller was not maintainable as the premises are not in the possession of respondent No,1 and respondent No,2 is in possession for last several years.
8. ' Having heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, perused the material on record and case-law placed at bar.
9. ' Framing the issue "whether there existed relationship of land lady and tenant" between the parties, learned Rent Controller arrived at the conclusion that the issue was not proved meaning thereby that there was no relation between the landlady petitioner and respondent No,2. The respondent No,2 had filed written statement denying any relationship being tenant of the petitioner and that he is owner of self contained independent unit/shop which had nothing to do with the premises of the petitioner and his shop was located adjacent to the shop of the petitioner. He had attached photographs of the shop. He further stated that petitioner was in possession for several years and recently applicant/ petitioner had started Nimco business under the partnership with one Abdul Jabbar. The petitioner was owner of the shop adjacent to the premises, respondent No,2 was exclusive owner and occupying the shop adjacent to that occupied by respondent No,2.
10. ' Learned Rent Controller vide his order dated 28-9-1998 dismissed the application of applicant /petitioner by coming to the conclusion that the respondent No,2 was not the tenant of the petitioner. Learned Rent Controller had given his decision as under:--- "Now the applicant neither in her application, nor in his affidavit-inevidence has mentioned that the opponent No,1 was the tenant of a portion of that two shops, or of both the shops, she suppressed the fact in order to evict the opponent No,2 from the Pan shop stated to the sublet by opponent No,
1. From perusal of Paras Nos. 2 & 3 it seems that the opponent No, 1 was inducted being tenant of both the shops, but herein his cross-examination the applicants attorney himself admitted that the shop in question is already in his occupation and he is running business of Nimco shop. It is also not proved by the applicant because he is in occupation of that shops, he himself admitted that the said shop is in occupation of himself" "One Ashraf had already occupied that shop illegally, it means that the applicant himself treats the opponent No, 2 as an illegal occupant, not a tenant or subtenant. Mere saying that the opponent No, 1 has not filed his written statement does not create presumption under these circumstances that he was tenant of the applicant and he sub-let the disputed shops to opponent No, 2, it is the duty of the Court to enquire into the matter judicially and not By upholding the decision of learned Rent Controller the learned First Additional District Judge Karachi East dismissed the F.R.A. No, 225/2001 filed by the petitioner.
11. The operative part of the order is read as following:--- "The record further shows that the applicant/appellant has filed the tenancy agreement dated 3- 5-1994 allegedly to have been executed between the applicant/ appellant and opponent/ respondent No, 1 which shows that the shops were let out to the opponent/respondent No, 1 whereas the said tenancy agreement was denied by the opponent/respondent No, 2 and asserted that the said tenancy agreement is false and it was incumbent upon the applicant/ appellant to prove the same but she did not examine the witnesses to prove the said tenancy agreement.
12. Moreover the attorney/ husband of the applicant/ appellant did not produce any power of attorney executed in his favour authorizing him to appear and depose on behalf of the appellant/ applicant in the said rent case."
13. "From perusal of the record and above discussion it is clear that the opponent/respondent No, 2 has denied the ownership of the applicant/appellant in respect of premises in his occupation which is alleged to be an independent unit and further contended that the premises in the said rent application are already in possession of the applicant/ appellant wherein she has been running business of Nimco. It is an admitted position on record that the applicant/appellant is running her business of Nimco. Since dispute between the parties is on the title of the property which needs detailed enquiry by the competent Civil Court."
14. ' Hence the appeal was dismissed and thereafter this petition has been filed by the petitioner against the orders of the two Courts below.
15. ' It has been admitted by the petitioner's attorney in his evidence that he is in possession of the premises and running business under the partnership with Abdul Jabbar which was let out to the respondent No, 1, the operative part of evidence is reproduced as under:-- "It is fact that Abdul and I are running business of Nimco in the shop. It is fact that present case in respect of shop of Nimco, voluntarily says that pan shop is also included in shop of mine. It is fact that prior to my possession the shop was in possession of Sultan, opponent No,
1. It is fact that 23 years back opponent No,1 left the shop."
16. ' I find that both the learned Courts below have given concurrent findings on the evidence produced. During pendency of this petition the inspection of the site was conducted and the report dated 6-42005 discloses only that a shop run under the name and style 'Hair & Shop' was owned by the petitioner which is tag barber shop and on the disputed site there is a Chat House with board having name as 'Anima Chat House'. Both the learned counsel have not referred to this inspection during their arguments and perusal of the same also does not disclose that respondent No 2 had encroached upon any disputed site or was illegally occupying the same, hence at this A stage the petition filed under Article 199 of the constitution would not be proper. In PLD 1981 SC 246 Muhammad Sharif and another and others. v. Muhammad Afzal Sohail and others it has been held as under:--- "Write petitions from orders of Tribunals to be discouraged---competency to decide includes to decide rightly or wrongly by Tribunal---Merely because another conclusion could be arrived at from evidence would not make it a case for interference under Art. 199---Filing of petitions to circumvent law or defeat legislative intention of speedy disposal of case, deprecated.
17. 'Jurisdiction, exercise of limited scope of interference in matters involving final orders of District Judge qua eviction proceedings under W.P Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)--- ' Interference confined to ascertainment as to if District Judge flouted provision of law or failed to follow law laid down by superior Courts."
18. "The writ petitions are argued before the High Court as if they are regular second appeals and we notice that the learned Judge of the High Court took great pains to reappraise the evidence and to consider each and very contention raised by the petitioner's side before decidirg the petition without realizing that, more often than not such petitions are merely a device to circumvent the amendment in the law and defeat the in the law and defeat the obvious intention of the Legislature." "It has been repeatedly held that a tribunal having jurisdiction to decide the matter is competent to decide it rightly or wrongly and the mere fact that another conclusion could be arrived at from the evidence does, not make it a case for interference in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction." ...In our view the jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere in matters of the kind involved in the present case is a very limited one and confined only to ascertaining whether the District Judge has not flouted the provisions of the relevant statute or has failed to B follow the law relating thereto as laid down by the superior Court 'In PLD 2004 Kar. 205 Hafiz Shafatullah vs. Mst. Shamim Jahan and another it is held as under:- "Held, the legislature in its wisdom seems to have tried to shorten the span of litigation in rent cases- generally, the interference in the orders passed by the tribunals is not called for".
19. 'Reference is made to findings given in case reported in 2003 M LD 1033 Messrs Mehraj (Pvt.) Ltd. v.
20. Miss Laima Saeed and others) reproduced as under; "By conferring only one right of appeal, under section 21 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979- -The Legislators tried to shorten the span of litigation in rent cases- -Exercise of constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 in such cases merely on the ground that another view of the matter is also possible-Would defeat the spirit and object of the statute."
21. In 2003 M LD 480 (Kar) Saifullah V. Muhammad Bux and 2 others it has been held that:- "....Petition- Maintainability Contention of the petitioner was that both the Courts of Rent Controller and the District Judge had not properly appreciated the evidence- Validity- Question pertaining to application of facts 'could not be resorted to, in exercise of constitutional Jurisdiction by High Court."
22. 'In PLD 2001 Supreme Court 415 it was held by the Honourable Court as under: "Art. 199-Constitutional jurisiction of High Court-Scope- -Disputed question of fact.
23. 'Forums available in the hierarchy under the relevant law had decided all the controversial questions on the basis of record and in accordance with law-High Court could not go into disputed questions of fact in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction. "
24. Hence in my opinion this Court cannot interfere in matters where the two lower Courts have given concurrent findings against the petitioner, appreciation of evidence not found to be perverse no provision of the statute was found to have been so grossly violated as the orders were passed within its jurisdiction, all the matters being decided on the basis of evidence available on the record and in accordance with the law, hence in view of the above discussion and the case-law cited. I find that the impugned order required no interference and this petition is dismissed accordingly.