MAMOON RASHID SHEIKH, J. --- This petition calls into question the judgment dated 8.11.2005 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Islamabad and the judgment dated 2.3.2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Islamabad.
2 The brief facts giving rise to this petition are to the effect that on 21.10.2003 respondent No. 3 filed an ejectment petition against the petitioners, under Section 17 of the Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001, before the learned Chief Rent Controller, Islamabad, in respect of the (non- residential) demised premises, fully described in the petition, inter alia, on the grounds that the lease had expired, the petitioners had committed default and that the family members of respondent No. 3 require the demised premises for their personal bona fide need. The petition was resisted and out of the divergent pleadings of the parties the following seven issues were framed:- --
(1) Whether the lease agreement has been terminated between the parties? OPA
(2) Whether the respondent is not paying the rent regularly? OPA
(3) Whether the rented premises is required for personal bona fide need of the petitioner? OPA.
(4) Whether the petition is not maintainable in its present form? OPR
(5) Whether the petition is false and frivolous and liable to be dismissed? OPR
(6) Whether the rent agreement was verbally extended? If so its effect? OPR .
(7) Relief.
3. Evidence was recorded and on the basis of the same issues Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6 were decided in favour of respondent No. 3 whereas issues Nos.4 & 5 were decided against the petitioners. As a consequence the petition was accepted by the learned Rent Controller, Islamabad, through the impugned judgment dated 8.11.2005. Feeling aggrieved the petitioners filed an appeal, under Section 21 of the Ordinance, ibid, before the District Judge, Islamabad, against the judgment dated 8.11.2005. The said appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Islamabad, through judgment dated 2.3.2006. Hence, the instant petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the impugned judgments, inter alia, on the grounds that in Para-6 of the ejectment petition the averments in respect of default have been given, however, no specific dates of default have been mentioned. As a consequence, it cannot be established as to when the default was committed by the petitioners. The default, if any, relates to an incident five years prior to filing of the ejectment petition. The petitioners had made good the default and they also paid the penalty in this respect. Respondent No. 3 accepted payment of the same consequently the matter was regularized and the situation was accepted by respondent No.
3. This is exemplified by the fact that respondent No. 3 started accepting rent at an enhanced rate after the regularization/settlement. Contends that respondent No. 3 failed to prove the ground of default. It is further contended that the personal bona fide need of the family members of respondent No. 3 has not been established on the record. Both learned Courts below have misread and non-read the material brought on the record. Moreover, there is misappreciation of the law and facts of the case. Relies on the judgments reported as Muhammad Azizullah v. Abdul Ghaffar (1984 CLC 2837) and Abdullah v. Hassan Abbas (1985 CLC 892).
5. The learned counsel for respondent No. 3 controverts the stance of the petitioners. He supports the impugned judgments and submits that there are concurrent findings of fact against the petitioners. In such-like cases this Court does not normally interfere with in its extra-ordinary Constitutional jurisdiction. Relies on the judgment reported as Muazam Hanif v. Settlement Officer/Collector & another (2006 SCM R 642).
6. Further submits that there is ho mis-reading or non-reading of evidence. Respondent No. 3 was able to establish personal bona fide need before the learned Courts below.
7. Also submits that the petitioners have admitted default. Even otherwise the default stands established by the fact that subsequent to the ejectment order respondent No. 3 filed a suit against the petitioners for recovery of the arrears of rent. The said suit was decreed on 22.5.2010 and the appeal filed by the petitioners against the said decree was dismissed on 9.10.2010 by the learned Additional District Judge, Islamabad. During the course of arguments the learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has placed on record a certified copy of the judgment and decree, dated 9.10.2010, in support of his contention.
8. Arguments heard. Record perused.
9. I have considered both impugned judgments and I find that whilst the evidence of respondent No. 3 was being recorded, the petitioners were given opportunity for cross-examination of respondent No. 3's witnesses but the petitioners failed to avail of the same with the result that their right of cross-examination was closed. The petitioners thereafter led evidence in support of their case. On the basis of the evidence led by the parties ti'e learned Courts below came to the conclusion that respondent No 3 had proved his case. Indeed, there are concurrent findings of fact against the petitioners. It is settled law that this Court in its extraordinary Constitutional jurisdiction normally does not interfere in such-like cases unless it can be established that the findings of fact by the learned Courts below are a result of misreading or non-reading of evidence or they are perverse, arbitrary or fanciful. Reliance is placed on the judgments reported as Shamshad Begum v. Mst. Huma Begum & others (2008 SCM R 79), Malik Muhammad Hussain v. District Returning Officer & others (2008 SCM R 488), Haji Abdullah & 10 others v. Yahya Bakhtiar (PLD 2001 S.C. 158) and Hanif & others v. Malik Ahmad Shah & another (2001 SCM R 577).
10. In the instant case the petitioners' counsel has been unable to show that there has been misreading or non-reading of evidence on the part of the learned Courts below. He has similarly been unable to establish that the impugned judgments suffer from any of the infirmities mentioned above. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners are, therefore, repelled. The judgments cited at the bar by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not attracted to the case.
11. As to the contention of the learned counsel for respondent No. 3 that the suit of respondent No. 3 for recovery of the arrears of rent has been decreed and the petitioners' appeal against the said decree has also failed consequently default on the petitioners' part stands established. It may be noted that the said decrees have been passed subsequent to the ejectment order. Under the law subsequent events may be taken into consideration by Courts whilst deciding cases. Reference is made to the judgment reported as Mst. Amine Begum & others v. Mehar Ghulam Dastgir (PLD 1978 S.C. 220). However, in the facts and circumstances of the case this point does not require examination, even though the learned counsel for the petitioners' has not denied passing of the said decrees.
12. Under the circumstances, this petition fails. It is accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.
The petitioners are, however, given three months from today to put respondent No. 3 into the vacant physical possession of the demised premise.