' The shop in dispute was leased out for a period of ten years from 1-10-1973 to 30-9-1983 by Laeeq Ahmad, the husband of Mst. Naeema Begum petitioner to Rafique Ahmad and Ateeq Ahmad respondents. Laeeq Ahmad later on transferred the shop to his wife, Mst. Naeema Begum petitioner. On 17-7-1983 she served a notice upon the tenants to the effect that she did not intend to extend the period of tenancy as it was required for her personal use i.e, for the use of her sons.
She followed up the notice by filing an ejectment petition against the tenants and the ground urged was the bona fide personal use of the landlady and her sons. This was contested by the tenants/respondents, but granted by the learned Rent Controller on 5-4-1984. This order was called in question and the learned Additional District Judge, as appellate authority, vide order dated 20-11-1984, concluded that there was inconsistency in the plea taken in the petition and that developed in the evidence, inasmuch as the personal requirement was tried to be made out for Waseeq Ahmad (A.W.3), a stepson of the landlady and bona fide requirement for a stepson could not be entertained at law. He, therefore, reversed the order of the learned Rent Controller and dismissed the ejectment petition.
2. Aggrieved, the landlady has filed the writ petition challenging the vires of the order of the learned Additional District Judge. Learned counsel for the petitioner was specifically questioned, whether writ jurisdiction was to be utilized for re-appraisal of evidence like a Court of second appeal. And precisely to this effect objection was raised by the learned counsel for the respondents-tenants at the very outset. The learned counsel submitted with reference to Sh. Khurshid Mahboob Alam v.
Muhammad Sharif and others 1984 CLC 938; Khawaja Muhammad Munawar v. Nisar Ahmad and 2 others 1985 CLC 1613; Fazal Azim and another v. Tariq Mahmood and another PLD 1982 SC 317 and Rahim Shah v. The Chief Election Commissioner of Pakistan and another PLD 1973 SC 24 that where the conclusion drawn by a Court or Tribunal is the result of non-reading or misreading of evidence, the Constitutional jurisdiction is available to correct the irregularity. The first report relied upon by him relates to a case of second appeal though it was a case of misreading of evidence. However, in the case of Sh. Khurshid Mahboob Alam referred to above, the misreading of evidence was held to attract the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. In Fazal Azim's case the concurrent findings of the two Courts below being there, the Constitutional jurisdiction was exercised when there was misreading of evidence. Even in Rahim Shah v. The Chief Election Commissioner of Pakistan and another PLD 1973 SC 24 the principle laid down was that cases of no evidence, bad faith, misdirection or failure to follow judicial procedure are to be treated as acts done without lawful authority and vitiate the act done or the proceedings taken by the Tribunal on that score. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents-tenants relied upon Muhammad Sharif and another v. Muhammad Afzal Sohail etc. PLD 1981 SC 246. His submission was that there was wisdom in the amendment in the Rent Restriction Ordinance, whereby the right of second appeal had been taken away, so, he goes on to argue, the writ jurisdiction could not be exercised so as to substitute a finding, which could have been possible on the basis of the evidence on record. From an appreciation of the reports referred to by the learned counsel by both the sides the legal position boils down to this, if there is misreading of evidence by a Court of special or exclusive jurisdiction or Tribunal, the Constitutional jurisdiction is available to correct the result, but if, on the basis of evidence, the conclusion drawn by the Court or Tribunal is sustainable in spite of a different conclusion also being possible, the Constitutional power is not to be exercised by the superior Courts. So it is to be seen, whether it is a case of misreading of evidence or a case, where the view taken by the learned Additional District Judge was sustainable.
3. As referred to above, in the notice served upon the tenants, it was clearly pointed out that the lease period was not to be extended as the shop was required by the landlady for her personal use i.e, for the use of her sons, in good faith. This very plea was asserted in the ejectment petition. The learned Rent Controller, on issue No,2 i.e, the issue relating to bona fide requirement for personal use, after thorough appreciation of the evidence led by the parties, concluded that the shop was required for Waseem Ahmad (A.W.2.) the real son of the landlady, who was undergoing the training after h,aving failed in Matric, and being without any business premises. In this very connection, he observed, that Waseeq Ahmad A.W.3, the stepson of the landlady, was also to work alongwith him.
The learned Additional District Judge considered that there was inconsistency in the plea taken in the ejectment petition and that developed in the evidence. He clearly seems to have misread the evidence in this regard. The landlady (A.W.1) clearly stated that her son Waseem Ahmad had failed in Matric, did not want to continue with his studies, was learning the Zargari trade, and had no shop with him. She also deposed that Waseeq Ahmad (the stepson) was also doing Zargari business and had no shop with him. Waseem Ahmad (A.W.2) himself deposed that he was Matric-fail, was learning the Zargari business and would start Zargari business in the disputed shop, as he was having no other shop. He also told that his stepbrother Waseeq Ahmad (A.W.3) would work there. It was only this sentence, which was taken out of the context by the learned Additional District Judge and conclusion drawn that there was inconsistency. Actually, as is the well-settled principle, the whole of the statement of a witness is to be appreciated to find out the real contents and it was in this spirit that the learned Rent Controller had appreciated the statement and concluded that the shop was required by Waseem Ahmad though his stepbrother Waseeq Ahmad would also work in that very shop.
' Even Waseeq Ahmad himself (A.W.3) has stated that Waseem Ahmad was learning the job of Zargari, had no shop and that both of them would work in this shop. So from this evidence, as correctly appreciated by the learned Rent Controller, the finding that could be recorded was that the shop was required by Waseem Ahmad, the real son of the landlady, though Waseeq Ahmad was also to work with him being his stepbrother. The learned Additional District Judge took out the single sentence from the statement of Waseem Ahmad out of the context and concluded inconsistency, which is clearly the A result of misreading of evidence. The other position that the shop could not be got vacated simply for the requirement of a stepson has not been disputed before me.
' The result is that the writ petition succeeds and the order of the learned Additional District Judge is set aside being the result of misreading of evidence while that of the learned Rent Controller restored. However, since the respondents-tenants seem to have a big business in the premises so a period of three months would suffice to vacate the premises.