{{PAGE CUT}} ' These are two connected writ petitions and, therefore, I inten to dispose of the same by this common judgment. The brief fact leading to the filing of the above petitions are as follows:- ' Constitution Petition No, S-7 of 1986 ' The petitioner is the owner of shop No,5-C (1), situated I Market A, Central Commercial Area, Defence Housing Authority whereas the respondent No,1 is the tenant He was paying rent a the rate of Rs,250 in 1975, when the above shop and the shop in th connected petition were purchased alongwith the flat by the petitioner The petitioner demanded enhancement of rent, which was increase) from Rs,250 to Rs,300. The petitioner's husband expired in 1973. I is the case of the petitioner that she approached the responden No,1 with the request either to vacate the shop or to increase th rent, on the expiry of her husband but the above request was no acceded to by the respondent. The petitioner, therefore approaChel the Martial_Law Administrator by her application dated 31-5-1982 fo vacation of the shop on the ground of personal requirement. It appear that the officer concerned in the Martial Law Headquarters, by hi order dated 16-9-1982 increased the rent from Rs,300 to Rs,450 ani declined the request of ejectment. It further seems that the petitione approached Martial Law Administrator by her second application date) 6-10-1982 stating therein, that she wanted either the vacation of th shop or substantial increase in the rent. No order on the above application was passed. Thereafter, she filed Rent Case No,16 o 1983 in the Court of Rent Controller Clifton Cantonment, Karachi The above application was resisted by respondent No,l. The petitione in support of the application examined herself and respondent No, examined himself. The learned Rent Controller by order dated 8-11-198 allowed the rent application. Respondent No,1 filed Rent Appeal No,12 of 1983, which was allowed by District= Judge South, Karachi 13: judgment dated 14-11-1985, acting as the Appellate Authority and se aside the order of the Rent Controller and dismissed the ren application. The petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment has file( the present petition. {{PAGE CUT}} mstitution Petition No, S-8 of 1986.
' The petitioner is the landlady of Shop No,5-C(Ii), situated in Lrket A, Central Commercial Area, Defence Housing Society, which had purchased in 1975 along with the shop which is subject-matter the above connected petition and a flat thereon. In this case also petitioner after purchase approached the respondent No,1 for the hancement of rent but the said respondent did not accede to the ove request. It is the case of the petitioner that on the expiry of u husband in 1978 she approached the respondent No,1 with the quest either to enhance the rent substantially or to vacate the op on the ground of personal requirement. Since the above request is not accepted, the petitioner filed an application before the Martial e Administrator on 31-5-1982 for ejectment on the ground of personal quirement. The above application was disposed of by order dated -9-1982, whereby the rent was enhanced from Rs,250 to Rs,450. However, the petitioner filed second application dated 6-10-1982 before Martial Law Authorities stating therein, that she wanted the cation of the shop on the ground of personal requirement or bstantial increase in the rent which was not done. It seems that order was passed on the above application by the Martial Law ithorities. After that she filed Rent Application No,17 of 1983 for ?Ctment against Respondent No,1 on the ground of personal quirement. The above application was resisted. The petitioner amined herself, whereas the respondent examined himself. The limed Rent Controller by order dated 8-11- 1983 allowed the above nt application. Respondent No,1 being aggrieved by the above order ed Rent Appeal No,128 of 1983 in the Court of District Judge uth, Karachi which was allowed by a common judgment dated -11-1985. The petitioner being, aggrieved by the above judgment s filed the above writ petition.
' In support of the above petitions Mr. J. H. Rahimtoola has hemently urged that the learned Appellate Court has acted illegally d without jurisdiction by non suiting the petitioner merely on the ound that she got the rent increased or she demanded the hancement of rent and, therefore, this petition is competent.
3. On the other hand Mr. Hassan Asghar Rizvi learned counsel the private respondents has submitted that the Appellate Court ing a Court of competent jurisdiction on facts and law has recorded finding of fact supported by evidence on record and, therefore, same cannot be interfered with by this Court in the exercise of nstitutional jurisdiction.
' Mr. J. H. Rahimtoola in furtherance of his above submission s referred to the following cases:
1. Badruddin Hasan Farooqui v. Manghi Industrial Home, reported in PLD 1976 Karachi 620, in which a learned Single Judge has allowed the second appeal against an appellate order and restored the order of ejectment of the Rent Controller on the ground of personal requirement. The fact that the landlord was living in two rooms with a large family and a crippled brother was proved. The only mala fide alleged by the tenant was that in 1963 landlord demanded enhancement of rent from Rs,350 to Rs,400 though the rent application was filed in igRA
2. Peerzada Rafiq Ahmad v. Chaudhry Abdul Rehman, reported in 1980 SCMR 772. In the above case petition for leave was dismissed and it was held that simpliciter demand of higher . Rent by the landlord does not by itself cast any doubt about personal bona fide requirement of the premises. The above-cited judgment of Karachi mentioned at serial No,1 was quoted with approval.
3. Shamsul Islam Khan v. Pakistan Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. Reported in 1985 SCMR 1986, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to allow the appeal against the judgment of Baluchistan High Court which had set aside the order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller on the ground of personal requirement on the ground that he had demanded the enhancement of rent. It was proved that the demised premises were situated adjacent to the landlord's premises and in fact the landlord needed the premises. It was held that the demand of increased rent itself was not sufficient to non-suit the landlord.
' On the other hand Mr. Hassan Asghar Rizvi learned counsel for the respondents has referred to the following cases:-
1. Muhammad Hussain Munir and others v. Sikandar and others, reported in PLD 1974 Supreme Court 139, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold "it is well settled that where a Court or a tribunal has jurisdiction and it determines that question, it cannot be said that it acted illegally or with material irregularity merely because it came to an erroneous decision on a question of fact or even fact of law."
2. Taj Muhammad and others v. Muhammad Iqbal and other reported in 1986 SCMR 276(2). In the above case petition for leave was declined on the ground that the High Court had rightly declined writ petition against the judgments of the Rent Controller and the District Judge in ejectment proceedings. It was held that the question raised before the High Court that the two courts had not properly appreciated the evidence was a question of fact which could not have been the subject- matter of the constitution petition.
4. It is true that simpliciter enhancement of rent may not be a ground for declining request for ejectment on the ground of personal requirement of a landlord, but the question before me is, as to whether in a constitutional petition I can set aside the finding of fact recorded by a competent forum provided under the Rent Ordinance. The Rent Controller took the view that the petitioner was able to prove her personal requirement, whereas the learned Appellate Court has taken a different view on the basis of same evidence. The view found favour with the learned Appellate Court cannot be said to be a perverse view as admittedly the petitioner filed an application for ejectment before the Martial Law Authorities though according to Mr. J. H. Rahimtoola it was not competent but the fact remains that an application for ejectment was filed on the ground of personal requirement. In the above application the rent was enhanced. After that she filed another application on 6-10-1982 stating therein, that either she should have been granted the ejectment on the ground of personal requirement or the rent should have been substantially increased. The present rent application was filed in 1983 immediately after the filing of the aforesaid second application. Keeping in view the above facts and also the admitted position that after the death of her husband the petitioner approached the private respondents with the request either to increase the rent or to vacate the premises, the learned Appellate Court could have taken the .View which found favour with it. The mere fact that this court might have taken different view on the appraisal of the same evidence, is no ground for interference with the finding of fact recorded by a competent forum, in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the private respondents support the conclusion, which I am inclined to take.
5. I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned Appellate Court. However, the learned counsel for the private respondents has agreed to enhance rent from Rs,450 to Rs,1000 with effect from 1-5-1987 after consulting the said respondents. With the above undertaking the above petitions are dismissed but there will be no order as to costs.