' The second appeal by Muhammad Bakhsh alias Mandu, is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, D.I. Khan dated 22-4-1982 whereby he dismissed the appeal of the tenant-appellant against the judgment and decree of the learned Rent Controller, D. I. Khan, dated 28-11-1981,
2. Briefly stated the facts out of which this second appeal arises are, that the landlord-respondent filed on ejectment petition against the tenant-appellant for his eviction from the suit premises on the grounds of default, impairment of the utility of the same, personal need and reconstruction. The tenant appellant resisted this ejectment petition on various grounds, giving rise to the following issues framed in the case : "(1) Whether the petitioner requires the shop for his personal use ? 0. P. P.
(2) Whether the respondent has defaulted in the rent and also impaired the utility of shop ? 0. P. P.
(3) Whether the petitioner requires the shop for reconstruction? 0. P. P.
(4) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the order of ejectment on any one or more of the grounds mentioned in the petition ? 0. P. P.
(5) Relief ?
3. After recording the evidence of the parties pro and contra the learned Rent Controller decided Issues 1 and 2 against the landlord-respondent while Issue No, 3 was decided in his favour.
However, Issue No, 4 was partly decided in his favour and partly against him. In the result, the learned Rent Controller passed an order of ejectment against the tenant-appellant, vide order dated 28-11-1981.
4. Not content with the above, the tenant-appellant filed an appeal which was heard by the learned District Judge, D. I. Khan and vide the impugned order dated 22-4-1982, the same was dismissed. He, however set aside the finding of the trial Judge on Issue No. 1 and decided the same in favour of the landlord-respondent. In the result, he concurred with the finding of the Rent Controller in Issues 2, 3 and 4. Hence the present appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant assailed, the judgment and decree of the two Courts below on the grounds that they have utterly failed to derive correct conclusion from the circumstances and facts of the case and based their findings on wrong notion; that both the Courts below have failed to examine material piece of evidence of Ghulam Haider Khan, District Engineer, Local Bodies, Dera Ismail Khan whereby he conceded that his Assistant Bashir Hussain Shah had visited the spot and he had not visited the same personally and his so-called subordinate was not produced in evidence, which- fact renders the testimony of Ghulam Haider Khan entirely worthless; that both the Courts below have erred in ordering the ejectment of the appellant on the ground of requirement of the suit premises by the landlord-respondent for reconstruction; that the two Courts below have misread the evidence and misinterpreted the law; and that the respondent- landlord failed to enter the witness-box and state on oath that his requirement was bona fide.
6. Learned counsel for the landlord-respondent opposed the arguments of the learned counsel for the tenant-appellant and argued that these points are the same which have been dealt with properly and the findings of the two Courts below are concurrent; and that the finding of facts cannot be disturbed by way of second appeal, in such like cases. In support of his arguments, he cited case law on the point. The first authority is reported in Messrs Arnir Din Allah Ditta v. Seth Adamji Abdullah and others (1), which says that findings reached by all the Courts below that the respondent genuinely wants to reconstruct the building for his own use and for which {FOONOTE}}
(1) 1969 SCM R 131 ' his plan has also been sanctioned by the Municipal. Corporation, is one of facts well-based on evidence and does not warrant interference by us. Next case relied upon by the learned counsel is reported in Karim Bakhsh v. Haji Arthi Khan and others (1), which lays down as under :- "Section 13(2) (vi) & 3(ii)-Requirement for personal use and reconstruction landlord's family consisting of three wives, fourteen daughters, and three sons-Landlord having no house to live in city where house in dispute lay-Utility of premises in dispute impaired by occupant tenant by installing oil extracting machines and also by making alteration-Plan duly sanctioned by Local Authority for reconstruction of premises placed on record and duly proved-Evidence on record, held sufficient to warrant finding of fact recorded by all authorities and mere fact of landlord having not appeared in witness-box no ground for rejecting claim."
' The third authority cited by the learned counsel for the landlord-respondent is reported in Khushi Muhammad v. Anwar Begum etc. (2) which says :- "Section 13(2) & (vi) (5-B)-Reconstruction-Landlord not mentioning in ejectment petition that after reconstruction possession would be passed on to tenant-Held, intention of landlord cannot be dubbed as mala fide-Tenant can apply under subsection (5-B) for putting himself into possession of new building."
' And the last authority relied upon in this context is Haji Muhammad Ayub v. Syed Buzarag Shah and 3 others (3) wherein the following observations have been made by my learned brother, Faiz Muhammad Khan, J "Section 15(4)-Second appeal-Concurrent findings of facts reached by Rent Controller and first appellate Court held, cannot be disturbed unless same based on no evidence or misreading or non-reading of evidence on record or on considerations totally irrelevant or in violation or disregard of relevant provisions of statute or law laid down by superior Courts."
7. I have gone through the record very carefully and have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced on both sides, and am of the view that the contentions of the learned counsel for landlord-respondent carry great force in them. Both the lower Courts have, after considering the evidence on record in its true perspective, can me to the concurrent decision that the suit premises is required by the landlord-respondent for reconstruction and thereafter for his personal use, as he intends to marry and has got no house for his residence. The points agitated in the present second appeal have already been dealt with properly by the lower forums and in view of the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the landlord-respondent these cannot be looked into while hearing the second appeal. The learned counsel for the tenant-appellant has failed to convince me that the concurrent findings of the two Courts below are based either on no evidence or misreading or non-reading of evidence on record or on considerations totally irrelevant or in violation or disregard of relevant provisions of statute or law laid down by the superior Courts. As such, I hold that the findings of the two Courts below concurrent in character, are not open to any exception and cannot be disturbed by this Court while sitting in second appeal under West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959). {FOONOTE}}
(1) 1983 SCM R 178 (2) PLD 1982 Lah. 295
8. As a net result of the above discussion, I see no merits in this appeal which is hereby dismissed with costs throughout. The tenant-appellant is directed to put the landlord-respondent in possession of the suit premises within two months, from today.