' Facts relevant to the disposal of the present writ petition in brief are that Muhammad Aslam alongwith four others successors-ininterest of one Ghulam Muhammad filed an eviction petition under section 13 of Ordinance VI of 1959 for eviction of Muhammad Salim for shop No, B-II-2R /25 Main Bazar, Okara on the ground of default in payment of rent, damage to the property and bona fide personal need. Muhammad Salim resisted the petition. Following issues necessary for decision of the eviction petition were raised by Rent Controller.
(1) Whether the respondent is a wilful defaulter? O.P.P.
(2) Whether the petitioners need the demised premises for their personal use in good faith? O.P.P.
(3) Whether the respondent had reduced the value and utility of the disputed property by acts of devastation? O.P.P.
(4) Relief.
' Parties produced their evidence. After hearing arguments and examination of record learned Rent Controller finding all the issues against Muhammad A slam and others proceeded to dismiss the eviction petition vide his order, dated 21-5-1984. An appeal was preferred under section 15 of the Ordinance in the Court of learned District Judge, vide order, dated 3-4-1984 learned District Judge, Okara while maintaining the finding on issues No,1 and 3, reversed the finding recorded on issue Ne.3 holding that personal need expressed by landlord had been proved. Consequently appeal was accepted, order passed by learned Rent Controller was set aside and the tenants' eviction was ordered.
2. Constitutional petition has been filed in this Court to assail the appellate judgment of learned District Judge on the ground that the decision proceeds on misreading of record besides being contrary to law.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and examined the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that eviction petition was filed by Muhammad Aslam, Muhammad Akbar, Muhammad Azam sons of Ghulam Muhammad, Mst. Bilqis Fareedi, Mst. Rukhsana Parveen daughters of Ghulam Muhammad jointly against Muhammad Salim their tenant on the ground of bona fide personal need. Rent Controller under issue No,2 found that the need was not bona fide and dismissed the petition. Appeal was filed by Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Akbar only leaving out rest of the applicants. This omission on their part rendered appeal defective in form in so far as the finding recorded against the remaining applicants by Rent Controller attained finality.
In this view of the matter learned counsel contended that since all the persons constituting one body of landlords had not filed an appeal against the finding on issue No,2, learned District Judge, therefore, committed serious errer of law in setting aside the said finding, on an improper appeal filed by only two of them. Learned counsel further contended that the evidence on record was not sufficient to prove that the landlords needed the shop for their own use and occupation.
4. As regards personal need one of the landlords namely, Muhammad Akbar appeared as a witness and stated on Oath that the shop in dispute is required by them for their own business. It was stated that the owners/landlords are selling cloth on Rehries and that they did not own any other shop in the relevant urban area. Muhammad Akbar stood the test of cross-examination and nothing substantial was brought out in cross-examination to discredit his statement made on oath. Muhammad Salim P.W.1 and Karam Din P.W.2 also supported him. This evidence was sought to be rebutted by the statement of Muhammad Salim tenant and one Muhammad Ismail. After reappraisal of the evidence in appeal learned District Judge, Okara found that the owners had succeeded in proving their bona fide need. Muhammad Aslam and others successors of Ghulam Muhammad are not shown to be in possession of any commercial premises sufficient for their need. In fact the evidence is that some of them are selling cloth on Rehries only. In view of this state of evidence, learned District Judge has not committed any error of law in holding that the landlords had fully succeeded in proving their bona fide need for occupation of the shop. A finding of fact has been recorded by learned District Judge which is based on proper appreciation of evidence.
The owners have the right to occupy their own shop for' purpose of doing their business therein.
Learned District Judge holding issue No,2 proved in favour of the landlords has not committed any error of jurisdiction and his finding has the support of evidence. Reappraisal of evidence for arriving at different conclusion in Constitutional jurisdiction is not permissible. It is correct that if the petitioners who instituted ejectment petition did not file appeal. Two of them are ladies who were not supposed to conduct business. Muhammad Akbar and. Muhammad Aslam the male members of the family who had to conduct the business in the shop alone filed the appeal. No objection seems to have been taken by the present petitioner regarding non-joinder of other landlords and consequently defective form of the appeal before the learned District Judge. The appellate judgment is absolutely silent on this point. Though Muhammad Salim was a respondent in appeal before the District Judge yet he could object to the_ maintainability of the appeal on the ground of non-joinder of the alleged8 necessary parties and its possible legal effects. Since the point was not agitated before the District Judge in appeal, it is not open for the petitioner now to assail the order passed in appeal on this ground. Evert" otherwise one of the co-owners could validly institute an ejectment petition for eviction of the tenant on the ground of personal bona fide need. The order passed by learned District Judge, therefore, in appeal is not open to question on this score.
4. Proceedings under Rent Restriction Ordinance are summary in nature. Right of second appeal has been abolished by legislature with obvious intention of conferring finality on the order passed in first appeal. Constitutional jurisdiction is available only to correct errors of jurisdiction committed by the subordinate Courts. In this view of the matter, the petition has no merit and is dismissed in limine.