' FAROOQ ALI CHANNA , J.---Through the instant constitutional petition, the petitioner has called in question the concurrent findings of two courts below, whereby learned VIIth Additional District Judge, Karachi (South) (hereinafter referred to as appellate court) vide judgment dated 11-4-2012 passed in First Rent Appeal No,52 of 2011, has maintained the order dated 24-1-2011 of IXth Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller (hereinafter referred to as trial Court) passed in Rent Case No,232 of 2009 , directing the petitioner to hand over the physical possession of tenement bearing Flat No,31, 6th floor, Imran Manzil, constructed on Plot No,R.S.3/16, Ramswami, Karachi (hereinafter referred to as flat in question) within sixty (60) days .
2. The respondent No,1 had filed rent application stating therein that he is the owner of the property bearing No R.S.3/16 Ramswa mi, Karachi consisting of shops and flats, by virtue of inheritance from his mother Allah Rakhi (late). By filing said application, he has requested the trial court for possession of flat in question for his personal bona fide use. The trial court allowed the rent application and directed the petitioner to vacate the premises; the petitioner had filed appeal before the appellate court, which was also dismissed.
3. During proceedings before this court, learned counsel for the petitioner has focused in his arguments on two grounds, firstly denying the ownership of flat in question of the respondent No,1 and that he is not son of original owner Allah Rakhi. Secondly the respondent No,1 has not established his right that, he requires that flat in question for his personal bona fide use. Learned counsel has contended that the petitioner at initial stage had raised the plea that respondent No,1 was the Rent Collector and not son of original owner Mst. Allah Rakhi, therefore, the respondent No,1 was not entitled to file ejectment proceedings for his personal bona fide use. Learned counsel has further contended that the respondent No,1 in rebuttal of specific plea of petitioner has failed to produce title document or any proof that he was son of deceased Mst. Allah Rakhi as such he cannot be termed as owner of flat in question. Learned counsel further contended that the building consists of many flats, out of which 13 flats are -situated on different floors of building and are rented out to different tenants but the respondent No,1 has chosen the flat situated at 6th floor of building having no lift facility, this shows that the requirement was not bona fide to settle his sons, but it was mala fide on the part of respondent No,1 creating a ground of personal use. Learned counsel in support of his contentions has relied upon the cases reported as 1987 SCMR 2051 (Mrs. Shahnoor Fazal v. Ghulam Akbar Mangi) and 2008 SCMR 398 (Muhammad Hafeez and another v.
District Judge, Karachi (East) and another).
4. Learned counsel for the respondent No,1 while controverting the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner while cross-examining the respondent No,1 himself has suggested that his deceased mother had sold the flat in question to Mst. Naheed Sultana, this suggestion itself is an admission of petitioner that deceased Mst. Allah Rakhi was the mother of respondent Mashkoor Ahmed, learned counsel has further contended that no other person has come forward to claim himself to be the legal heir of deceased Mst. Allah Rakhi, having inherited share in the flat in question, as such the respondent No,1 is undisputed exclusive owner of the property, left by deceased Mst. Allah Rakhi. Learned counsel has further contended that honourable Apex Court in various cases have observed that it is exclusive prerogative of landlord to choose any tenement for his personal bona fide use, and the tenant cannot insist/suggest any other premises to owner for his personal use. Learned counsel has further contended that the respondent No,1 has made statement on oath in shape of affidavit in evidence, the same is to be accepted unless shaken in cross-examination or disproved in rebuttal. Learned counsel in support of his contentions has relied upon the cases reported as PLD 2007 SC 45 (Shajar Islam v.
Muhammad Siddique and 2 others), 2010 CLC 599 (Ittehad Chemical Ltd. v. VIIth Additional District and Sessions Judge and others), 1993 CLC 1602 (Mumtaz Ahmed v. Mst. Razia Zaheer), 1989 CLC 1467 (Khursheedul Islam v. Mrs. Qamar Jahan), PLD 2013 Sindh 25 (Habib-ur-Rehman and 7 others v. VIIth Additional District Judge, Hyderabad and 2 others), PLD 2009 Karachi 268 (Almas Khan v.
Mrs. Bano through Attorney and 2 others), (sic) PLD 481 (International Computers Ltd. (ICL) v.
Standard Chartered Bank Ltd. ) and 2013 CLC 88 (Wasiudin Siddiqui v. Muhammad Nawaz Mandokhel and 2 others).
5. The perusal of record reveals that petitioner in his written statement before the trial court has not challenged the status of respondent No,1 being son of deceased Mst. Allah Rakhi, on the contrary in the written statement the petitioner has admitted impliedly that respondent No,1 is the son of deceased Mst. Allah Rakhi in para No,2 of the written statement it is stated that respondent No,1 has not become owner of flat in question because Mst. Allah Rakhi had sold the said flat to Mst. Naheed Sultana. In para No,4 of written statement it is stated that the respondent No,1 had approached the petitioner and offered to vacate the flat in question against an amount of Rs,8,00,000 to Rs,10,00,000 as he intended to demolish the building. However, admittedly the property is still mutated in name of deceased Mst. Allah Rakhi, but the same shall not disentitle the respondent No,1 from his claim to be the owner of property, as, under Muslim law a presumptive heir on death of his predecessor acquires all rights in the property by operation of law and does not need any letter of administration under Succession Act, 1925 for exercising the proprietary rights in respect of property so inherited. The reliance can be placed on a case reported as Mumtaz Ahmed v.
Mst.Razia Zaheer (1993 CLC 1602) (supra).
6. Besides above the respondent No,1 has sought eviction of petitioner on the ground of his personal bona fide need, which can only be decided on the basis of evidence, both the parties have led the evidence in support of their contentions and both the courts below after considering and discussing the evidence thoroughly have come to concurrent findings that the respondent No,1 has made out his case of requiring the flat in question for his personal bona fide use and it is settled proposition of law that High Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction is not supposed to interfere in the concurrent findings on the controversial question of facts based on evidence even if such findings are erroneous . The scope of judicial review of High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution, 1973 in such cases is limited to the extent of misreading or non- reading of evidence or if the findings are based upon no evidence, which may cause miscarriage of justice and it is not proper for High Court to disturb the findings of facts through reappraisal of evidence in its writ jurisdiction or exercise this jurisdiction as a substitute of revision or appeal, the High Court must be most reluctant to undertake assessment of evidence and disturb concurrent findings of facts by the courts below unless misreading or non-reading of evidence is pointed out or the courts below have passed an order contrary to law . Learned counsel for petitioner has failed to point out any of above principle requiring the interference of this court in its writ jurisdiction; as such the judgment and order passed by both the courts below do not suffer from any infirmity or are based upon misreading or non-reading of evidence. The constitutional petition has no merits and deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly the Constitutional petition is dismissed.