1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by a tenant of urban property against the acceptance by the High Court of respondents-landlords' constitutional petition and restoration of the order of the ejectment passed by the Rent Controller.
2. ' Two questions are now left to be resolved; (1) whether the finding of the High Court, regarding the wrong approach of the Appellate Court on the question of the bona fide requirement of the landlord, was not correct; and (2) whether the alleged agreement to sell executed during the pendency of the writ petition between the landlord and third party sought to be relied upon before the High Court from the petitioners side will not make any difference in so far as the order of ejectment of the petitioners is concerned.
3. The first question relates, amongst similar others, to the question of misreading of evidence also.
4. After hearing the learned counsel in this behalf, we are satisfied that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment which might be noticed by this Court.
5. ' Regarding the second question also, it is within the discretionary field of the High Court to notice or ignore a development which takes place during the pendency of the writ petition before it.
6. Otherwise .Too, the impugned judgment is neither without jurisdiction nor illegal on account of the decision of the second point by the High Court against the petitioners. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused.
7. ' Leave to .