This petition under Article 199 of the constitution challenging the validity of the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad, respondent 1, dated the 13th April, 1980, whereby the appeal filed by Shah Jahan, respondent 3, against the order of the learned Rent Controller, Faisalabad, respondent 2, dated the 4th June, 1979, dismissing his petition under section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, for eviction of Naik Alam, petitioner, from the house in dispute bearing No. 1430-B, Peoples Colony, Faisalabad, was accepted and the petitioner was ordered to vacate possession of the house, arises out of the following circumstances. Respondent 3 filed ejectment application against the petitioner on the grounds that he required the house for his personal need in good faith, that the petitioner had committed default in making payment of rent and that he had effected alteration in the building of the house without his permission. The petitioner asserted his own ownership of the house and denied that he occupied it as tenant under respondent 3. The learned Rent Controller after drawing issue relating to the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the contesting parties came to the conclusion that respondent 3.Could not establish that the petitioner was his tenant and consequently dismissed the application for eviction of the petitioner. However, in appeal preferred by respondent 3 the learned Additional District Judge formed a contrary view and holding the petitioner to be a tenant under respondent 3 ordered his eviction as he had denied his tenancy.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner maintained that the learned Additional District Judge had misread the evidence and, therefore, drawn incorrect inference. Referring to para. 6 of this judgment the learned counsel contended that the learned Additional District Judge had misquoted the statement of Iftikhar Hussain, Record Keeper, of the office of the Urban Rehabilitation Officer, Faisalabad, P. W.
1. Actually lftikhar Hussain appeared twice in the case, once as P. W. 1 on behalf of respondent 3 and again as R. W. 2 as the petitioner's witness, what the learned Additional District Judge has reproduced in his judgment is his statement that be made while appearing as R. W.
2. It was due to some typographical error that he referred to Iftikhar Hussain as P. W. 1 and not as R. W. 2.
Nevertheless, the hard fact remains that his statement as R. W. 2 has been correctly quoted and referred to by the learned Additional District Judge and he cannot be said to be guilty of misreading the evidence. The insistence of the learned counsel that as the learned Additional District Judge has referred to the statement of Iftikhar Hussain. As P. W. 1 and what he has mentioned is not to be found in his statement as P. W. 1 it should be taken that the learned Judge has misread the evidence is not justifiable. The learned Additional District Judge having based his finding on evidence on the record no exception can be taken thereto in this petition. No other point was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petition is without any substance and is dismissed in limine.