' FAROOQ ALI CHANNA , J.---The petitioner through the instant constitution petition has called in question the concurrent findings of two courts below passed by learned IVth Additional District Judge, Karachi (Central) (hereinafter referred to as Appellate Court) dismissing the First Rent Appeal No,60 of 2005, vide Judgment dated 28-4-2007 maintaining the order dated 23-2-2005 passed by First Rent Controller, Karachi (hereinafter referred to as trial court) in Rent Case No,109 of 2002, dismissing the ejectment application of the petitioner.
2. Briefly facts of the case are that petitioner Mst. Sardar Jehan Begum through her attorney and real son Mohtashim Ali Qadri filed ejectment application under section 15 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter referred to Ordinance, 1979), seeking the ejectment of respondent from Shop No,5 situated on Plot No,1, Row No,13, Sub Block-C, Block-V, Nazimabad, Karachi rented out to the respondent at monthly rent of Rs,1000, on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent and that the petitioner requires the tenement for bona fide use of her daughter Mrs. Yasmin Nasir.
3. The respondent in pursuance of notice filed written reply denying the contents of ejectment application, stating that he with the permission of Rent Controller was depositing rent in MRC No,291 of 1998 regularly as the petitioner had refused to receive the rent offered to him in person so also sent through money order. The respondent has also denied that the petitioner requires the tenement for bona fide use of her daughter and has contended that the petitioner intend to sell the property, such offer was also made to him but due to her demand more than the market value, the negotiations failed. The trial court from the pleadings framed the issues, decided the same in negative, and consequence whereof dismissed the ejectment application. The petitioner assailed the order of dismissing the rent case in F.R.A, which was also dismissed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner on plea of wilful default in the payment of rent has invited the attention of this court towards the deposit of rent in M.R.C.No,291 of 1998 and has contended that the respondent without adopting the procedure laid down under section 10(3) of the Ordinance; 1997, started to deposit the rent in M.R.0 after expiry of stipulated period provided under the law for payment of rent. Learned counsel has contended that the petitioner has claimed the rent for January, 1998 and onwards, the respondent has deposited the rent for the month of January to July, 1998 within time, however he has deposited the rent for the month of August, 1998 to November, 1999 in the month of November as such he has deposited the rent of August expiry of stipulated period and became wilful defaulter as per record of Rent, Controller rendering him liable to be evicted from the demised premises. Learned counsel has further contended that besides the admitted default, the petitioner had never refused to accept the rent, as such the deposit of rent in MRC amounts to harassm ent to the landlord entitling her to be put to possession of tenement. In support of his contentions learned counsel has relied upon the cases reported as 2006 SCM R 1872 (Muhammad Asif Khan v. Shaikh Israr), 2006 SCM R 1501 (Mst. Yasmeen Khan v. Abdul Qadir and another) and 2010 M LD 1543 (Ghulam Nabi v. Noushad Ali and 2 others). Learned counsel has further contended that the petitioner needs tenement for the personal use of her daughter Mrs. Yasmeen Nasir. Being her basic right mere assertion of landlord that the tenement is required for personal bona fide use is sufficient ground for eviction of the tenant.
5. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondent on confrontation has controverted the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and referred to cross-examination of attorney of the petitioner, wherein he has admitted the receipt of rent through cheque for the alleged default period w.e.f, January to June, 1998. Learned counsel has contended that the deposit of rent in MRC w.e.f,' January to July, 1998 was in addition to the payment of rent through cheque received by the attorney of the petitioner, as such the rent deposited in MRC for said period be termed as advance future rent. Learned counsel for the respondent has further contended that the petitioner in Para No, 4 of the ejectment application has shown the need of tenement for her son Muhtashim Ali Qadri appearing in the instant matter as her attorney but later on replaced his name with the name of Mrs. Yasmeen Nasir, her daughter, this shows that the petitioner herself was double minded that for whom she actually needs tenement for personal bona fide use. Learned counsel has further contended that the attorney during cross examination has admitted that they intended to sale the demised premises but since the petitioner did not accept offer, therefore they decided to file the ejectment application learned counsel has also challenged the maintainability of the instant constitution petition against the concurrent findings on facts of two courts below.
6. The trial Court while deciding the issues in negative has examined and considered consciously the evidence of attorney of the petitioner and Nazir's report and has come to the conclusion that there was no wilful default in payment of rent, particularly in view of the admission of attorney of the petitioner that he had received the rent for the months of January, 1998 to June, 1998 from the respondent. The trial Court has also observed the over writing in the Para No,4 of the main ejectment application, whereby the name of Muhtashim Ali Qadri was replaced with the name of Mrs. Yasmeen Nasir, who admittedly was not a working lady. The trial Court has also taken notice of admission of attorney of the petitioner that they had an idea to sell the demised shop and had contacted the estate agents in this respect. The Appellate Court in appeal has also considered and discussed the evidence thoroughly led by both the parties and has concurrented the findings of the trial Court on both the issues.
7. I have also perused the cross-examination of attorney of the petitioner, wherein he has admitted all the facts noticed by the trial Court so also the Appellant Court. Beside the above, admittedly the petitioner has not filed the ejectment of application personally nor she has come forward to file affidavit in evidence and to put herself in witness box to justify her plea of requiring the demise premises for personal bona fide use of her daughter nor Mrs. Yasmeen Nasir has been examined in support of said plea as such the evidence of attorney of landlady is mere hearsay evidence that the landlady requires the demise premises for personal bona fide use of her daughter Mrs. Yasmeen Nasir such sole hearsay evidence of attorney of landlady is not sufficient to prove the requirement of demise premises to be bona fide.
8. Regarding constitutional jurisdiction of High Court it is settled law that the scope of High Court to exercise writ jurisdiction in rent matters is very limited to interfere with the concurrent findings, even if on the basis of same evidence another view of the matter is possible, would not justify excessive of constitution jurisdiction. Invoking of such jurisdiction under Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 to be discouraged by High Court, reason being that otherwise the very purpose and object of expeditious disposal of such cases through the court of Rent Controller and providing right of only one appeal would be frustrated.
9. TI impugned judgment of both the courts below are based upon appropriate discussions, appraisal of evidence and appreciation of law with cogent reasons and does not suffer from any infirmity, misreading or non- reading of evidence led by both the parties as such requires no interference of this court in its constitutional jurisdiction. The constitutional petition is therefore dismissed.