The petitioners Muhammad Nafees and 12 others have moved this Constitutional petition praying therein that the impugned order of the learned Rent Controller dated 6-12-1986, Annexure F and that of the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore dated 4-7-1988 Annexure H may be declared without lawful authority and of no legal consequence. Briefly the case is that Muhammad Sharif deceased predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners moved an eviction petition under section 13 of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, Annexure A for the ejectment of the respondents from Shop No. 20/10, Hall Road, Lahore on the grounds of default and personal need for its use and occupation of his son Muhammad Nafees. The application of the petitioners was contested by the respondents by filing written statement in the case. The learned Rent Controller framed as many as 4 issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties. The petitioner produced Meraj Din A.W 1, Nafees Ahmad A. W. 2, Agha Abbas A.W. 3, Manzoor Ahmad A.W. 4 and he himself appeared as A.W.
5. Rent note executed by the parties was also exhibited as A/1 while the site plan of the property in question was placed on record as Ex. A/2.
2. The contesting respondents produced Bashir Ahmad, Record Clerk, G.P.O. Lahore R.W. 1, Barkat Ullah Postman R.VN'. 2, Rashid Ahmad, Assistant, Office of the Director Accounts, Post Offices R.W. 3, Ikhlaq Ahmad R.W. 4, Amjad Khan R. W. 5 and Tariq Mahmood respondent appeared as R.W.
6. They produced rent receipts Exh. R./1 to R./15. The learned Rent Controller after recording the evidence and hearing the parties proceeded to dismiss the eviction petition on 6-12-1986. The appeal filed by the petitioners also met the same fate vide order of learned Additional District Judge dated 4-7- 1988 Annexure H.
The principal contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that there is ample evidence on record to show that the respondents are guilty of default in payment of rent and that the premises in question are needed bona fidely for use and occupation of Nafees Ahmad son of the original applicant. It is next contended that Nafees Ahmad A.W. 2 is admittedly working with his brother-in-law in a shop at Fortress Stadium, Lahore and that the shop in question is required for the commencement of his independent business. It is submitted that Ex. A/1 rent note executed by the parties is not admissible inasmuch as its registration was necessary under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908. The learned counsel lastly maintained that it is proved that the period of original tenancy between the parties ended during the pendency of the application and as such the eviction petition cannot be declared to be incompetent in law.
4. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents vehemently contends that there is finding of fact arrived at by the learned Courts below after considering the entire evidence of the parties. Learned counsel maintains that there is no evidence which has not been considered by the Courts below.
He urges that the mala fides on the part of the petitioners is established inasmuch as they failed to produce rent note executed by the parties and that an application was moved by the contesting respondents praying for the production of the rent note entered into between the parties. The learned counsel stressed that this application was hotly contested by the petitioners by submitting the written reply. He stated that the disposal of the application consumed considerable period and ultimately the petitioners produced the rent note Ex. A/1. He stated that the non--production of the rent note by the petitioners and the disclosure by the respondents in the very beginning that there was a rent note already in existence between the parties will show mala fides on the part of the petitioners.
5.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The learned Rent Controller came to the clear conclusion that no default has been committed by the contesting respondents and that they duly tendered the rent of the property in question well in time in accordance with law. Thus the finding on issue of default was in favour of the respondents and against the petitioners. Similarly the learned Rent Controller observed in his order that the rent note Ex. A/1 dated 2-11-1970 executed by the parties shows that the property in question was rented out to the respondents for a period of 15 years and on the date when the eviction application was moved, the tenancy period did not come to an end. The learned Rent Controller after discussing the evidence came to the conclusion that the non-production of the rent deed and the concealment of facts will show that the petitioners proceeded with mala fides in tire ejectment petition. This finding of fact was maintained by the learned Additional District Judge vide his judgment dated 4-7-1988. It was categorically found that Muhammad Nafees, the son of the original applicant is running a business of furniture. In my considered view the petitioner did not disclose all the necessary facts in the case and that he concealed the execution of the rent deed Ex. A/I and that he was compelled to produce the said document before the trial Court for its perusal. This very fact shows that the petitioner was determined to cause the ejectment of the respondents from the property in question under any circumstances. It is true that 15 years period has not expired on the date when the application was moved for` the ejectment of the respondents "Put the same definitely came to an end during the trial of the ejectment petition. Thus, in my view the eviction petition cannot be termed as incompetent for the reason that the said period expired during the trial of the application. However, the concealment of the rent deed from the Court will show clear mala fides on the part of the applicant. The landlord has already received a sum of Rs.
23,000 as, security from the respondents. Thus the Courts below have correctly come to the conclusion that the petitioners approached the Court below with unclean hands and that the bona fide requirement of the disputed shop for use and occupation 1; of Muhammad Nafees is not at all established on record. The son of the petitioner Muhammad Nafees as observed earlier is already doing his business in some other premises. The learned counsel for the petitioners was unable to show as to what evidence has not been considered or misread by the Courts below. They have thrashed out the entire evidence in its depth and have come to the lf conclusion which cannot be interfered with in the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.
6. The upshot of the above discussion is that there is no substance in the petition, which is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.