' This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 arises out of an application under section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 filed by respondent No,1 against the petitioner with respect to a shop situated in Bhawana Tehsil Chiniot District Jhang. In the written statement filed by the petitioner he denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. The parties produced their evidence in support of their respective contentions. The Rent Controller by means of his order dated 9-6-1985 dismissed the ejectment petition holding that the petitioner was not a tenant under the respondent.
2. Aggrieved by this order respondent No,1 filed an appeal which was accepted by the Addl. District Judge Chiniot on 1st of December, 1985. This order was challenged by the petitioner by filing Writ Petition No,5252/85 which was accepted and the case was remanded on 5th of May, 1987 to the Rent Controller on the basis of a statement made by the parties. The Rent Controller after recording the additional evidence, again dismissed the application on 14th November, 1987.
3. Still feeling dissatisfied respondent No,1 filed an appeal which was accepted by the Addl. District Judge, Jhang on 18th of December, 1988 who reversed the findings of the Rent Controller on the issue of relationship of landlord and tenant and held the petitioner to be a tenant under respondent No,1. This judgment of the Addl. District Judge has been assailed by the petitioner by filing this Constitutional petition.
4. Mian Ghulam Rasul, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has stated that while reversing the finding of the Rent Controller the Addl. District Judge has misread the evidence on the record and had gone by conjectures rather than evidence. The learned counsel emphasised that there was no evidence produced by respondent No,1 to show that he was the owner or the landlord of the premises.
5. Malik Allah Yar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No,1 on the contrary argued that the Addl. District Judge after appraising the entire evidence on the record has recorded a finding of fact that the shop in question was let out to the petitioner by the father of respondent No,1 and this finding is not liable to be interfered with in the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.
6. In the ejectment petition filed by him respondent No,1 has categorically asserted that the petitioner had been inducted into possession of the shop about 6/7 years ago at the monthly rent of Rs,50. In the written statement filed by petitioner this assertion was denied but it was not explained as to how and on what capacity the petitioner was in possession of the property. As a matter of fact the written statement filed by the petitioner is far from satisfactory. In course of evidence, it was asserted by the petitioner that the shop in question was evacuee in nature and he being a Displaced Person was retaining possession in that capacity. No documentary evidence was led in support of this contention. The plea raised by the petitioner was belied by A.W.5 Falak Sher Patwari who appeared with the record to state that the property was not evacuee in nature.
No valid exception can therefore, be taken to the finding recorded by the Addl. District Judge.
7. The main stress of the learned counsel for the petitioner was however that respondent No,1 has not led any evidence in respect of the title to the property nor has existence of landlord and tenant been established by any evidence. While reversing the finding of the 'Rent Controller the Addl.
District Judge relied upon the statements of A.W.1 Ahmad, A.W.2 Muhammad Aslam and A.W. 8 Muhammad Bakhsh as also the petitioner who had appeared as A.W.9 and A.W.
3. It is neither permissible nor possible to re-appraise the evidence in the exercise of the Constitutional jurisdiction. Suffice it to say for the present purposes the finding recorded by the Addl. District Judge finds support from the evidence. As regards the witnesses produced by the petitioner, their testimony were disregarded for valid reasons. The question as to whether the property was leased by respondent No,1 to the petitioner is one of fact and the finding recorded by the final Court of appeal cannot be interfered with by this Court. That being so the petition cannot succeed.
8. It is, however, to be seen there is a dispute as to the title of the property.
' Respectfully following Rehmat Ullah v. All Muhammad and another 1983 SCM R 1064, the petitioner is allowed to establish his title to the property if he so desires by filing a civil suit. If the suit is filed it shall be decided on merits uninfluenced by the observations made in this judgment.
' The writ petition fails and is dismissed without any order as to costs. The petitioner is allowed two months time to vacate the premises in dispute.