' MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.-Through this constitutional petition, Dr. Hassan petitioner wants this Court to declare the order dated 4th April, 1982 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Multan, respondent No, 1, reversing the judgment of the learned Rent Controller, Khanewal, rejecting the application for ejectment from house in dispute filed by Haji Rehmatullah, respondent No, 2 against Dr. Hassan petitioner herein, to be without lawful authority.
2. The facts leading up to this petition in brief are that Haji Rehmatullah respondent No, 2 purchased house No, 68, Khanewal from Mst. Ghulam Fatima. Since the house was on rent with the petitioner at that time, Haji Rehmatullah respondent No, 2 served a notice upon Dr. Hassan petitioner as required by section 13-A of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 and also asked him to pay Rs, 800 as monthly rent. The petitioner herein, however, did not pay the rent demanded by the respondent herein and started depositing Rs, 180 per month with the Rent Controller which he was already paying to the previous owner Mst. Ghulam Fatima.
' On 3rd September, 1975, Haji Rehmatullah moved an application for the ejectment of the petitioner/tenant on the ground of default, requirement for bona fide personal use, damage done to the house by the tenant and reconstruction of the same. In written statement various preliminary objections were raised and the averments were denied. The pleadings created the following issues :-
(1) Whether the application is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties ? 0. P. R.
(2) Whether the petitioner has no cause of action to file this ejectment petition ? 0. P. R.
(3) Whether the petition is premature ? 0. P. R.
(4) What is the effect of preliminary objection No, 3 raised in the reply of petition ? 0. P. R.
(5) Whether the application is defective and mala, fide, if so its effect ? O. P. R.
(6) Whether the house in dispute comes under the definition of scheduled building, if so its effect ?
0. P. R.
(7) Whether the respondent is a delaulter ? 0. P. A.
(8) Whether the respondent has impaired the value of the house in dispute ? 0. P. A.
(9) Whether the petitioner requires the house in dispute for his bona fide personal use 0. P. A.
(10) Whether the petitioner wants to rebuild the house in dispute, if so, its effect ? 0. P. R.
(11) Relief.
' Before learned Rent Controller issues Nos. 1, 3 and 4 were not pressed by the tenant. Issues Nos. 2 and 5 were found against the landlord. Issue No, 6 was decided against the tenant, issue No, 7 was decided against the landlord and it was held that the tenant was not a defaulter, issues Nos. 8, 9 and 10 were decided against the landlord. Resultantly, the petition for ejectment was dismissed on 15th April, 1981. Aggrieved by the order of the Rent Controller, Haji Rehmatullah filed appeal. After hearing the parties, the learned Additional District Judge, Multan referred to the judgment of the learned Rent Controller on issues Nos. 2, 5, 9 and 10. He found that the house in dispute was required for bona fide personal use and the landlord respondent No, 2 therein wanted to reconstruct the same. He consequently, set aside the judgment of the learned Rent Controller and allowed the application directing the tenant to vacate the house and hand over its possession to the landlord. Hence this petition.
3. Before me, the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised three points :- (i)that since there was no approval of the plan for the reconstruction of the disputed house at the time of filing the application, the Additional District Judge had no jurisdiction to decide issue No, 10 in favour of respondent No, 2 herein ;
(ii) that the requirement for personal use has not been proved. The evidence led by the landlord respondent was not worth reliance. Haji Rehmatullah the landlord having avoided to appear as witness, was not entitled to ejectment on the ground of his requirement for personal use and that the evidence has been misread by the learned Additional District Judge, and
(iii) that the property in dispute was jointly occupied by the petitioner and his wife and they were running a joint Clinic and as such the application for ejectment was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, -
4. After hearing the learned counsel and going through the material placed on the record, I find that as for point No, (i), as admitted by the. Learned counsel the plan was approved during pendency of the ejectment proceedings and as such the irregularity, if any, stood B removed and was not available at the time of the decision of the ejectment application by the Rent Controller.
There is, thus, no force in this point. So far as point No, (ii) is concerned, I find that respondent has led evidence to prove his requirement for personal use. The landlord is admittedly living in a rented, house, he does not own any other house in Khanewal and as such requirement of bona fide personal use is very much apparent on the face of the circumstances. It has not been denied that the respondent is an old man and his attorney has appeared as a witness and has deposed about the requirement of the respondent for his personal use. This is an issue of fact. The learned Additional District Judge fully applied his mind to the evidence brought on the record and has given reasons in support of his conclusion arrived at by him. I am afraid that this Court while sitting in writ jurisdiction cannot go into the question of C weight to be attached to the evidence brought on the record, particularly on the question of fact. For these reasons point No, (ii) fails As for point No, (iii), I find that the objection as to the non-joinder of the necessary parties, the subject-matter of issue No, 1 was not pressed before the Courts below, it has clearly been stated by them that issue No, 1, 1. e. "Whether the application is bad for non-joinder of necessary . Parties" was not pressed before them and as such it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to agitate this point at this stage. Point No, (iii) is answered accordingly.
5. I find that both the parties have led evidence to prove and rebut issues Nos. 9 and 10. The attorney of the landlord also entered in the witness box. Both these issues are almost issues of the facts. It is well established that this Court while sitting in writ jurisdiction, cannot go into D the question of the appreciation of evidence and the weight to be attached to it. The learned Additional District Judge had an authority to reverse the findings of the learned Rent Controller on issues Nos. 9 and 10. No material misreading has been pointed out. I find that the appellate authority has not flouted any provisions of the law and has not disregarded the case law laid down by the superior Courts.
' For what has been stated above it is not a fit case for interference by this Court in its writ jurisdiction. The petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.