This writ petition assails the judgment dated 19-3-1989 passed by a learned Additional District Judge (Appellate Authority under the Rent Restriction Ordinance), Lahore.
2. Premises forming part of a building known as National House located at 47-Shahra-e-Quaid-e- Azam, Lahore, are in occupation of the petitioner as tenant under respondent No.l, hereinafter referred to as the respondent, viz. M/s. United Bank Ltd., Zonal Chief Office, 7, Bank Square, Lahore.
3. The respondent filed an application before the learned Rent Controller, Lahore, seeking eviction, of the petitioner on the grounds of bona fide personal need, default in payment of rent and damage to the rented premises. The ejectment application was resisted by the petitioner. The learned Rent Controller put the parties on trial on the following issues:-
(1) Whether the disputed premises are bona fide required for the personal need and occupation of petitioner in good faith? OPP
(2) Whether the respondent is wilful defaulter?
(3) Whether the respondent has made additions and alterations without the consent of plaintiff?
OPP
(4) Whether the respondent has impaired materially value and utility of the disputed premises?
OPP
(5) Relief.
After recording the parties evidence and after hearing them, issues Nos.l to 4 were found against the respondent and consequently the eviction application was dismissed on 22-2-1988.
4. Being aggrieved from the order of the learned Rent Controller, the respondent preferred an appeal. The learned Appellate Authority vide impugned judgment dated 19-3-1989 has reversed the findings of the learned Rent Controller on issue No.l and thus the appeal has been accepted and an order has been made directing the petitioner to hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises to the respondent within two months. Thus the present writ petition.
5. It has been urged on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent bank has more than 150 buildings where it can conveniently open the office which is allegedly sought to be opened in the premises in question. It has further been contended that the respondent-bank previously sought eviction of the tenant occupying the premises known as Pejo Restaurant forming part of the same building but after the tenant agreed to enhance the rent, the eviction application was withdrawn. It has thus been urged that in case of the petitioner also, the bank 1 wanted to enhance the rent and to exert pressure on the petitioner the eviction application culminating into the impugned order has been filed with mala fides.
6. The learned Addl. Distt. Judge has already considered these contentions of the petitioner and it has been found that the respondent bank was in bona fide need of the tenanted premises and that apprehension of the petitioner that the premises in question would be given on rent to some other person at the enhanced rent was misconceived as in such eventuality the petitioner could avail of the protection provided in subsection (4) of Section 13 of the Rent Restriction I Ordinance, 1959. The findings on a question of fact recorded by a Tribunal of competent jurisdiction cannot and should not be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction if such findings do not suffer from am shortcoming in the nature of misreading or non-reading of evidence, jurisdictional error or disregard of the principles of law enunciated by the Superior Courts. No such infirmity has been noticed in the case of the impugned judgment.
7.In this view of the matter, the present writ petition is devoid of merit and is, therefore, dismissed in limine.