1. ' S. A. NUSRAT, J.-This petition for leave to appeal is from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 10-5-1984 whereby a constitutional petition brought by the petitioner challenging the order of his eviction passed by the Rent Controller and upheld by the learned Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi, by his order dated 10-3-1984 was dismissed.
2. ' The application for ejectment was filed on 5-4-1983 by the fist respondent/landlord (hereinafter called the respondent) under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 19 9 on the ground that the premises were required by him for his personal use and occupation in good faith and default in payment of rent. The application was contested by the petitioner and the allegations made in the ejectment application were denied by him. After recording the evidence of the parties the Rent Controller ordered the ejectment of the petitioner by his order dated 8-10-1983 on the ground of personal requirement only. This order was challenged by the petitioner in appeal before the Additional District Judge which was dismissed on 10-3-1984. The petitioner thereupon filed a Constitutional petition in the High Court challenging the order of the Additional District Judge dismissing his appeal whereby the order of petitioner's ejectment passed by the Rent Controller was upheld. The said constitution petition was dismissed as per impugned judgment.
3. Hence this petition.
4. ' It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent-landlord had got one shop vacated from his tenant Liak Ahmad and another shop which had fallen vacant during the ejectment proceedings had been rented out by him to another tenant. This, according to the learned counsel, sufficiently proved that the respondent had failed to establish his case of requirement of the disputed shop premises in good faith. These very contentions were raised before the learned Rent Controller also and were repelled, and rightly so, on the basis of evidence available on the record. As regards the shop which was got vacated through ejectment proceedings from the tenant, the order passed in the case shows that premises in that litigation were got vacated for the personal bona fide need of the respondent's son namely Khurshid Ahmad.
5. The allegation with regard to renting out the shop by the respondent during the pendency of the proceedings was considered by the Rent Controller and it was held that the petitioner had failed to prove the same because neither the occupant of the shop was examined nor the person from whom it was got vacated was produced as a witness. It was lastly contended by the learned counsel that an application was made before the learned Additional District Judge for calling further evidence for the purpose of proving that the respondent had in fact rented out one shop which was vacated by the tenant during the pendency of the proceedings but the same was not allowed. Apart from the fact that this was an attempt on the part of the petitioner to fill in the lacuna in the evidence earlier recorded at the trial, the counsel was unable to point out that any such plea was raised before the learned Additional District Judge because no discussion in this regard is to be found in the judgment. The learned counsel however stated that this contention was raised before the learned Additional District Judge but was not adverted to in the judgment. On further being asked he had to admit that the case was argued before the learned Additional District Judge by some other counsel and he had not in fact appeared on behalf of the petitioner.
6. There is no allegation in the petition before us either that such a contention was raised before the Additional District Judge but was not adverted to in the judgment in spite of the same.
7. Apart from the fact that the matter was taken up before the High Court in a Constitution petition where no interference on facts was called for, nonetheless the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner were attended to by the learned High Court and it was held that on evidence there was no case made out by the petitioner for interference.
8. ' The findings of the learned High Court are unexceptionable and no question of law worth consideration arises in this petition which is dismissed accordingly.