1. SHAFI-UR-RNHMAN, J.-The petitioner, a tenant under orders of eject--ment, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 1-2-1982 whereby the constitutional petition filed by him against the ejectment order was dismissed.
2. Respondent No. 1, the landlady, filed an application seeking eject--ment of the petitioner on the ground that he had defaulted in making thepayment of rent from October, 1975 to October 1978 and that she needed the property for her own personal use. It was also claimed by the petitioner that one year's tenancy agreement having expired in 1971 and the tenant having undertaken to vacate the premises when required by the landlady he was obliged to do so. The application was contested by the petitioner on all the three grounds. As regards the default in the payment of rent it was claimed that the landlady had been making pur--chases from the shop of the petitioner and the rent used to get adjusted in this manner. No separate rent receipts were produced. The Rent Con--troller rejected the defence of the petitioner and upheld all the grounds taken by the respondent-landlady and directed the ejectment of the petitioner. On appeal the appellate authority examined only the question of default and came to the conclusion that the evidence produced by the petitioner to show that the rent had been paid was not of such quality as to negative the claim of the landlady with regard to the default in payment of rent. Hence the order of the Rent Controller was maintained. The petitioner filed a second appeal in the High Court but the same abated on the promulgation of the law and a constitution petition was then filed by the petitioner. The legal ground taken up in the High Court was that the personal need of the husband of the landlady was not the need recognized by law in respect of a non-residential building and as such that ground was not available at all to the landlady. As regards default in pay--ment of rent it was contended that the books of accounts had not been correctly appreciated and due weight has not been given to. The entries made therein. The learned Judge in the High Court rejected both the grounds and dismissed the constitutional petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has taken us through the case law with a view to demonstrate that great value is attached to the entries in the books of account regularly kept and maintained in the ordinary course of business and in the case of the petitioner the burden stood discharged. As regards the personal need of the landlady it was contended that the need being of her husband she could not get the evic--petition order.
4. The appellate authority and the Controller had examined the account books and the manner in which the account books were kept. The found it to be uninspiring. In constitutional jurisdiction evidence which has not been considered worth reliance cannot be considered to be of great value unless a legal error has taken place in admitting the evidence or in evaluating it. There is no rule that the entries made in the account books regularly kept particularly in the matter of repayment of a debt or discharge of a liability of rent is so sacrosanct as to prevail always. I the absence of any such principle of law the evidence duly appraised b the authorities could not be reappraised in the constitutional jurisdiction with a view. To arrive at another conclusion. The default in the payment of rent by itself was a sufficient ground for maintaining the order of eviction. Leave to appeal is in the circumstances refused. The petitioner however, is granted three months' time to hand over vacant possession to the respondent. The learned counsel undertakes to ensure this and also regular payment of rent till then.