' Bashir Ahmad respondent No,1 filed an eviction application before the learned Rent Controller, Gujrat, seeking eviction of the petitioners-tenants from a shop, situated in Muslim Bazar, Gujrat, on the grounds of non-payment of rent and personal need. The petitioners resisted the ejectment application challenging inter alia that earlier on four occasions the rent was enhanced and that the landlord again wanted increase in the rent and, therefore, ejectment application was not based on bona fide. The learned Rent Controller framed the following issues:-
(1) Whether the respondents are defaulters in payment of rent? O.P.A.
(2) Whether the applicant requires bona fide the shop for personal use ? O.P.A.
(3) Relief.
' After recording the parties evidence, both the issues were decided against respondent No,1, the landlord and consequently his ejectment application was dismissed.
2. Respondent No,1, feeling aggrieved, preferred an appeal which was accepted by the learned District Judge, Gujrat (Appellate Authority under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959), vide his order dated 27th September, 1983. The learned District Judge has reversed the findings of the learned Rent Controller on the question of bona fide personal need while he upheld his findings on the issue pertaining to default in payment of rent. Thus ejectment of the petitioners has been ordered.
3. The petitioners have assailed the aforesaid order, dated 27th September, 1983, passed by the learned District Judge, by invoking the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.
4. It has been vehemently argued on behalf of the petitioners that the learned District Judge, while passing the impugned order, has failed to consider that previously there has been enhancement in rent on four occasions and that on record the alleged bona fide personal need was not proved. The landlord himself did not care to come into the witness-box. It has also been alleged that as a matter of fact, ejectment petition has not been signed by the landlord himself as has been held by the learned Rent Controller.
5. On the question of personal need, the learned District Judge has found, on the basis of testimonies of Niaz Ahmad, A.W.1, Sh. Abdul Latif, A.W.2 and A.W.3 Zameer Ahmad, the son and attorney of the landlord, that the shop was required for bona fide personal need of Zameer Ahmad, the son of the landlord. It has also been found by the learned District Judge that there was no cogent evidence available on the record to suggest that Zameer Ahmad, the son of the landlord, was running an Electric Store at Shandaula Road, Gujrat, as alleged by the tenants, i,e, the petitioners. The statements of witnesses, produced by the petitioners before the learned Rent Controller, were also taken into consideration by the learned District Judge. Regarding the allegation that the ejectment petition was not signed by respondent No,1, the landlord, it has been observed by the learned District Judge that in fact no such plea was raised by the tenants in their written statement and this point appeared to have been agitated at the time of arguments before the Controller. His observation in this behalf was, therefore, uncalled for. This observation of the learned District Judge is borne out from the contents of Annexure 'B', copy of the written statement, filed by the petitioners before the learned Rent Controller. No objection has been raised in the written statement to the effect that the application or vakalatnama were not signed by the landlord himself.
6. In view of the above discussion, it can be safely inferred that there is no force in the petitioners' contention that the findings of the learned District Judge on the question of bona fide personal need were based on misreading of evidence. Reliance on behalf of the petitioner has been placed on Sh. Khushi Muhammad v. Kh. Muhammad Rashid Wain 1968 SCM R 1158, Nasir Mahmood v.
Mustajabi Begum 1983 CLC 2872, Muhammad Nasim Yar Khan v. Sh. Ata Ullah 1979 CLC 805, Muhammad Asghar and 5 others v. Mst. Jamila Khatoon 1979 CLC 367 and Shah Nawaz and another v. Muhammad Nawaz Khan PLD 1976 SC 767. The law laid down in these judicial precedents has little relevancy to the facts of the under consideration matter. In the present case, as already observed, the learned Appellate Authority has recorded a finding of fact on the question of bona fide personal need of the tenanted premises by the landlord. This finding is not based on misreading of evidence and is not in any manner in disregard of the principles enunciated by the Superior Courts. Such a finding recorded by a Tribunal of competent jurisdiction cannot, therefore, be interfered with in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction merely on the ground that on the basis of evidence adduced; a different conclusion could be arrived at. It has been ruled in Muhammad Sharif and another v. Muhammad Afzal Sohail PLD 1981 SC 246, that the jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere in matters of ejectment of tenants under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, is very limited one and confined only to ascertain whether the District Judge has not flouted the provisions of the relevant Statute or has failed to follow the law relating thereto as laid down by the superior Courts. It has also been observed in this case:-- "It has been repeatedly held that a tribunal having jurisdiction to decide a matter is competent to decide it rightly or wrongly and the mere fact that another conclusion could be arrived at from the evidence does not make it a case for interference in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction."
7. For the foregoing conclusions, this constitutional petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The petitioners are, however, allowed two months' time, effective from today for vacation of the tenanted shop.