ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-This petition is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court (Rawalpindi Bench), dated 8-4-1981, accepting the respondent's S.A.O. (No. 813/79), in a rent case, on the ground that from the evidence on the record the bona fide need of the respondent-landlord for requirement of the shop in question for personal use stood proved.
2. The facts leading to the petition are briefly that Muhammad Zaman respondent-landlord filed an application for ejectment of the petitioner (tenant) from Shop No. U/633 Mochi Bazar, Rawalpindi, on the ground of default in payment of rent and for boner fide requirement of the shop for his personal use. After recording the evidence the learned Rent Controller dismissed the application.
The appeal filed by the respondent-landlord was also dismissed by the learned first appellate Court. He then filed a Second Appeal before the High Court which was accepted as mentioned above.
Hence the present petition.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. His main contention before us was that the learned Judge in Chamber could not set aside the concurrent findings of fact relating to a bona fide need of the landlord's personal requirement in Second Appeal.
4. We have gone through the relevant portions of the evidence and the impugned judgment of the High Court. It is true that ordinarily the High Court is not competent to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact by the learned Courts below, but in the present case there is sufficient material to show that the Courts below had misread the evidence on record and the first appellate Court had based its conclusions on extraneous consideration which are not borne out or established by evidence on the record.