MUHAMMAD NAEEM ANW AR, J.---- Through this single judgment, I intend to decide the instant petition titled mentioned above, as well as the following four connected petitions, as common questions of law and facts are involved in all these five petitions:-
1. Civil Revision No.10454-P/2019 titled "Mohabbat -Khan and others v. Govern ment of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Local. Government, Peshawar and others".
2. Civil Revision No.1054-P/2019 titled "Muhammad Khan and others v. Gover nment of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Local Government, Peshawar and others".
3. Civil Revision No.1055-P/2019 titled "Syed Amjid Jamal and another v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Local Government, Peshawar and others".
4. Civil Revision No.1081-P/2019 titled "Qasim Shah and others v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Local Government, Peshawar and others".
2. Requisite facts leading to the institution of these petitions 'are that petitioners have instituted suits for declaration to the effect that they are the tenants of the respondents in shops, descriptions of which have been given in the heading of the each plaint, situated at Old Lari Adda, Kohat City (hereinafter referred as disputed shops) , since long and there are no outstanding dues of the disputed shops against them, therefore, the respondents have got no right to dispossess them from the shops in questions, without due course of law, as such, the notices issued by the respondents are illegal, wrong, based on mala fide, without lawful authority and of no legal effect. With an added prayer of temporary injunction to the effect that respondents be restrained from making any kind of interference in their possession. Respondents have contested the suits through their detailed written statements. The learned Trial Court, after hearing the parties, on the application for grant of temporary injunction, dismissed the application of the petitioners, feeling aggrieved from the same, they have assailed the order of the learned civil Court before the Appellate Court, however , their appeals were dismissed through impugned order/judgment dated 26.09.2019, hence, these petitions.
3. Arguments heard and record perused.
4. Admitted position is that the tenancy created between the plaintif fs/petitioners and defendants/ respondents on the basis of an agreement for a period commencing from 01.07.2014 to 30.06.2015, for annual rent to be paid by the petitioners. Other terms and conditions of the tenancy , were properly inserted in the agreement, regarding the payment of monthly rent etc, however , it was categorically mentioned that whenever , the property would be needed to the respondents, the same shall be vacated, on one month notice and in such an eventuality , the petitioners would be bound to handover the vacant possession of the disputed shops to the respondents, without any objection. It is also not denied that the petitioners remained in possession of the disputed shops, for last three decades, however , the tenancy was being extended, on yearly basis and it was lastly expired on 30.06.2015, thereafter , it was never extended. The petitioners were served with notices that the shops are in dilapidated conditions, needed for re-construction. It was also mentioned in the notices that the petitioners have not paid any rent since February , 2018, therefore, the petitioners were directed to handover the vacant possession of the disputed shops for construction, otherwise, the proceedings shall be initiated in accordance with law .
5. It is pertinent to mention here that in the very first sentence of the notice dated 12.02.2018, it was categorically mentioned that due to dilapidated, crumbling and deteriorated condition of the disputed shops, thus respondents have proposed to reconstruct the same, for which, an advertisement has been published on 10th of May, 2018 but interestingly , with this aspect of the notice, not even a single word was mentioned in the contents of the plaint, therefore, when no categoric or evasive denial on the part of the petitioners / plaintif fs, pertaining to the dilapidated conditions of the shops, the petitioners by their conduct have admitted the stance of the respondents.
6. It is also not controverted that at the moment, there is no tenancy exists between the parties because it has already expired on 30th June, 2015. So far as, the contention of the petitioners, that notices are based on mala fide, would be determined after recording of evidence, as from the contents of the plaints, the factum of mala fide could not be ascertained.
7. Another significant aspect of the instant matter is that the suits were instituted in the year, 2018 and now after about 2 1/2 years, when the matter is pending before the learned Trial Court, the evidence of not even a single witness was recorded till today , which shows the attitude and mentality of the petitioners / plaintif fs. When the learned counsel for the petitioners and the petitioners were asked that how many witnesses were examined, they have stated at the bar that no evidence till now was recorded. Had the evidence been recorded before the learned Trial Court, after institution of the suits, the matter might have come to an end.
8. Even otherwise, for grant of temporary injunction, it is sine-qua-non for the petitioners / plaintif fs to have on record a prima facie case qua balance of convenience and irreparable loss with co-existence of these ingredients in their favour . As discussed above, the mala fide attributed to the respondents requires evidence. It is settled principle that a case standing in need of evidence, required to be established is not a prima facie case for the purpose of grant of temporary injunction, reliance may be placed on the case reported as 1987 CLC 2416 . The petitioners are in possession of the disputed property for more than three decades, which simply signifies the deteriorated and dilapidated condition of the shops in question which obviously would be requiring its reconstruction. The collapsible condition of the building further leads to an inescap able conclusion that balance of convenience and irreparable loss tilting in respondents' favour . In case titled "Allah Bakhsh and others v.
Province of Punjab and others" reported in (2002 SCMR 2002 ), the apex Court has held that "for the petitioners of their own showing at present have no right to retain possession over the land after expiry of the lease period from the date of taking over possession in the year 1994, for even the extended period has also expired".
9. During course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has floated a suggestion that if the respondents commit before the Court that petitioners would be adjusted in the shops after reconstruction they would hand over the possession of the disputed premise s to the respondents, however , the learned counsel representing the respondents has stated at the bar that he is not in a position to make any such state ment, as, he does not know the exact period for the completion of construction.
10. Furthermore, petitioners' possession of the disputed shops after expiry of tenancy when the condition of the building is admittedly dilapidated one is also a question mark. The petitioners have not been able to point out any illegality or irregularity , jurisdictional defect or infirmity in the concurrent findings of the learned Courts below that too when the order impugned before the Court is an interlocutory , which was challenged under Section 115, C.P.C.
In addition to above, the concurrent findings of the learned Courts below could only be set aside if B the same are the result of misreading, non-reading of evidence or any irregularity or patent irregularity committed by the Courts below , as the principle for exercise of jurisdiction with the matters pertaining to the concurrent findings of the Courts below has been settled down by the apex Court in case titled "Mst. Zaitoon Begum v. Nazar Hussain" reported in (2014 SCMR 1469 ), wherein it was held:- "Such findings were not open to interference in limited revisional jurisdiction of the High Court, albeit, it may be, to some extent, erroneous on both points of fact and law".
11. For the reasons stated above, this and the connected petitions stands dismissed with no order as to costs.