1. ' AHMED ALI M. SHAIKH, J.--- Petitioner Syed Izahar Ali has filed this constitutional petition to impugn the order dated 23-5-2008 and judgment dated 9-5-2009 passed by the respondents Nos.2 and 3 respectively in Rent Case No,45 of 2007 and F.R.A. No,92 of 2008.
2. ' The facts giving rise to this petition are that Mst.. Amina Begum the mother of respondents has filed the Rent Case under section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, before the learned II- Rent Controller Karachi (Central) stating therein that petitioner is her tenant in respect of shop which is constructed on Plot No,12/3, C-Area Liaquatabad, Karachi, at the rate of Rs,2,000 per month. The above application was filed on the ground of default as well as bona fide need for the use of her children namely Jahanger and Muhammad Fazal, who want to run the tailoring shop in the above said premises. It is categorically stated in the rent application that instead of Rs,2,000 per month, the petitioner is paying Rs,1,000 per month saying that half of the rent may be adjusted from the fixed deposit, but the applicant/respondent did not agree to such proposal.
3. ' During the pendency of above rent application, Mst. Amina passed away, hence private respondents Nos.1(i) to 1(vii) being her legal heir were impleaded as applicants.
4. ' The petitioner filed his written objections, wherein he did not dispute the relationship of tenant and landlord, but he disputed the personal bona fide need of the premises in question, monthly rent as well as default.
5. ' In support of their pleas, Fazal Ahmed one of the legal heirs of Mst. Amina Begum as well as attorney of remaining legal heirs filed his affidavit-in-evidence and reiterated the assertions made in the application. Ghulam Shabbir Qadiri and Salahuddin also filed their affidavits-in-evidence in support of the applicants/land lords. The petitioner. Izhar Ali also filed his affidavit-inevidence.
6. ' The Rent Controller after hearing the arguments of learned counsel for parties vide its order dated 23-5-2008 allowed the application of applicants/respondents in the terms that petitioner was directed to vacate the premises within the period of 30 days.
7. ' The petitioner preferred the appeal against the aforesaid order being F.R.A. No,92 of 2008, which was dismissed on 9-5-2009 and the order passed by the respondent No,2 was maintained.
8. ' Per learned counsel for the petitioner, the findings of the learned two courts below are contrary to the facts on record and law. The respondents Nos.2 and 3 have erred seriously in appreciation of the evidence of the parties on the points viz. The law preliminary applicable to the case on the points have been disregarded and ignored. The principle of onus of proof on points has been disregarded and violated, unwarranted presumptions on points have been made, material piece of evidence on points have been omitted and not considered, the evidence on points have been misread and misinterpreted. The learned counsel further contended that the respondents Nos.2 and 3 have shut out the respondent No,1 as well as documents on points without applying judicial mind and thereby given findings on falimsy and untenable grounds. The impugned order and judgment have been passed without touching into the consideration, the relevant record and the contentions raised by the petitioner. He has lastly contended that the impugned order and judgment are not sustainable and they are liable to be set aside.
9. ' On the other hand, Mr. Adnan Usman learned counsel for the respondents contended that the impugned order and judgment passed by the respondents Nos.2 and 3 are in accordance with the law. He further contended that the, the applicants/respondents have proved their case on both points viz. The requirement of the premises in good faith and default on the part of tenant/petitioner.
10. ' Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and judgment passed by the respondents Nos.2 and 3 including the annexures available in the file.
11. ' In these proceedings, the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the two courts below in the rent cases are challenged. The constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere in the matters of the rent involved in the present case is very much limited and confined only to ascertain whether the appellate Judge has not flouted provisions relating to the statute or failed to follow the law relating thereto as laid down by the superior courts while examining the scope of constitutional Petition in rent matteRs, It is held in Messrs Shamim Akhtar v. State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan Karachi and 2 others PLD 2005 Kar. 554:--- "Before discussing factual aspects of the case and examining the above noted contentions of the learned counsel, it would be appropriate to mention here that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 is extraordinary in nature which is aimed at proper dispensation of justice and to avoid abuse of the process of law. Therefore, normally such jurisdiction is not to be exercised by the High Court to interfere with the discretionary orders of the subordinate Courts where jurisdiction has been conferred upon it by some special statutes. Moreover, as held by this Court in the case of Messrs Mehraj (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Miss Laima Saeed and others 2003 M LD 1033 "jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of Constitution cannot be invoked to circumvent the provisions of rent laws so as to serve the purpose of second appeal, which has been specifically done away by the legislature, while promulgating the Ordinance of 1979, unless the findings recorded by the Tribunal are found to be based on patent misreading of evidence or the same are arbitrary, capricious, and perverse and have resulted in gross miscarriage of Justice."
12. ' It is held in the case of Mazahar Husain Shah through L.Rs, v. Member Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore and others 2006 SCM R 959 that High Court had no jurisdiction to substitute its own findings for the findings recorded by the tribunals below. In the case of Malak Muhammad Husain v. District Returning Officer and others 2008 SCM R 488, the concurrent findings of fact recorded by competent authorities having jurisdiction, were not interfered by the High Court in writ jurisdiction.
13. On the same point this honourable Court in Hafiz Shafatullah v. Mst. Shamim Jahan and another PLD 2004 Kar. 502 held as under:-- "By conferring only one right of appeal under section 21 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, Legislature in its wisdom seemed to have tried to shorten the span of litigation in rent cases and in such circumstances interference by High Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution in judicial order passed by Tribunal of competent jurisdiction, merely on ground that another view of the matter was also possible, would not serve any other purpose, but would add to the misery of prolonged litigation for the parties and would defeat the spirit and object of statute."
14. From the dictum laid down by the honourable Supreme Court as well as this Court, I am clear in my mind that the scope of constitutional petition with regard to the concurrent findings of fact, arrived by two courts below is very limited and such findings can not be interfered unless in exceptional circumstances. From the pleadings it appears that the applicant/respondent Fazal Ahmed or his witnesses were not cross-examined by the petitioner's counsel, on the point whether the rent was Rs,1000 per month or Rs,2,000 per month though they have categorically stated in their respective affidavits in evidence that the rent of the premises in question was Rs,2,000 per month.
15. ' On the point .Of personal bona fide need though the applicant/ respondent Fazal Ahmed was cross-examined, but the learned counsel for the petitioner could not shake him. In cross- examination while responding to a question he answered in following words, "The tenament is suitable for our need, it is not particular hostility. It is incorrect to suggest that the shop in question is not required by us. Voluntarily says that we are in need of tenaments". In response of an other suggestion he replied "It is incorrect to suggest that the opponent has not committed any default and we are only come forward on personal need".
16. ' From the above suggestion, it appears that the petitioner also did not dispute the personal need of the respondents. It is pertaining to mention here that the witnesses Ghulam Shabir Qadiri and Salahuddin were not cross-examined on the point of rent amount, personal bona fide need of the applicants/respondents or monthly rent amount, though both of them have categorically stated that the monthly rent of the premises in question is Rs,2,000.
17. ' Upon a bare perusal of affidavits in evidence of applicant/ respondent Fazal Ahmed and his witnesses Ghulam Shabir Qadiri and Salahuddin as well as their cross-examinations, I am clear in my mind that the respondents have proved their case on the point of default as well as on personal bona fide need. Hence the impugned judgment passed by the respondent No,3 is in accordance with the law and on the basis of the material as well as evidence adduced before Rent Controller by the parties, hence no case for interference in the impugned judgment is made out.
18. Keeping, in view the dictums laid down by the honourable Supreme Court as well as by this court in the aforesaid, judgments I am of considered view that the petition merits no consideration and same is D dismissed accordingly. However the petitioner is granted three months time to vacate the demised premises and hand over the same to the respondents. Petition stands disposed of.