' The petitioner through this Constitutional petition has prayed that orders dated 21-2-89 and 21-4- 90 are without jurisdiction.
2 The relevant facts are that Rehmat Ali predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos.3 to 10 filed an ejectment petition under section 13 of Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 in respect of shop situated at Nadeem Shaheed Road, Ichhra Lahore. The ejectment petition was filed on 11-1- 1983 and the ejectment of the petitioner was sought on the ground of default in the payment of rent since September, 1982 and personal use. The rate of the rent was claimed to be Rs,100 per month. The petitioner contested this ejectment petition and alleged that the rate of rent is Rs,55 per month. The learned Rent Controller framed the following issues:-
(1) Whether the respondent has defaulted in the payment of rent for the disputed period? O.P.P
(2) Whetj?Er the petitioner requires the disputed property for his personal as well as for the use of his children, in good faith? O.P.P
(3) Relief."
3. The landlord in order to prove these issues examined Muhammad Rafiq as P.W. 1, Sarfraz All Shah as PW 2 and himself appeared as P.W. 3 while petitioner examined Muhammad Arshad as R.W.2, Manzoor Hussain as R.W.3 and himself appeared as R.W 1. The learned Rent Controller after hearing the arguments allowed the ejectment petition vide order dated 21-2-1989, which was impugned by the petitioner through an appeal before the appellate authority, who dismissed the same vide order dated 21-4-1990. These orders have now been assailed in this Constitutional petition. The same was admitted to regular hearing and notices issued to the respondents. The respondents Nos. 3 to 10 have appeared through their learned counsel and contested the petition while the others are proceeded ex parte.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the petition argued that the landlord miserably failed to prove the default.It is added that none of the witnesses have any direct knowledge as to the default. Therefore the Courts below have wrongly decided issue No,l. It is added that the premises in dispute were used as shop since construction and it was never occupied by the landlord as part of residential premises. The arguments are summed up with the submission that the landlord's side has failed to prove that the premises were residential. The learned counsel in this behalf had referred to the cases of Kodumal-Kherajmal vs. Seth Dema Mal (PLD 1969 Quetta 21) and Dr. Bano Abedin v. Dr. Haq Nawaz Arbab (PLD 1982 Karachi 818).
5. On the other hand learned counsel for contesting respondent argued that although P.Ws. 1 and 2 have deposed that receipt was issued for the rent received and added that the premises in dispute were used as part of the residential house yet they were not cross-examined on these material points, therefore, it will be deemed that their statements were accepted. It is further added that moment the landlord produced evidence as to non-payment of rent then the burden of proof shifted to the petitioner to prove payment. In this behalf he has referred to the cases of Alllah Din v.
Habib (PLD 1982 SC 465 Rashid. Ahmad v. Khushi Muhammad 1982 CLC 1618).The next submission is that personal use was proved to the hilt and the same has rightly been decided in favour of his clients. The learned counsel in this behalf has referred to the case of Ghulam Rasool Shah v. Kamal Khan (1986 SCMR 1605). The arguments are summed up with the submission that it is a case of concurrent findings of fact, therefore, no interference is warranted in the Constitutional jurisdiction.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record as well as precedent cases. The landlord pleaded that the rate of rent is Rs,100 per month but the petitioner denied the same and averred in the written reply that the rate of rent is Rs,50 p.m It seems that he did not press this point and it is for this reason that no issue was framed. On the other hand, it is clear from the statements of his witnesses R.Ws. 2 and 3 that the rate of rent was Rs,100 per month. The petitioner in his statement alleged payment of Rs,165 towards rent for 3 months. This statement is falsified by his own witnesses, therefore, the default is proved even from his own statement on the one hand and on the other hand he having taken a false plea disentitled him to any relief in the Constitutional jurisdiction.
7. Now coming to the personal use the P.Ws were not cross-examined. This fact alone is sufficient to uphold the findings of the respondents Nos.1 and 2. There is merit in the argument of the learned counsel for the contesting respondent that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for interference in Constitutional jurisdiction and there is nothing to disturb the concurrent findings recorded by two Courts below.
' The result is that there is no merit in this petition. The same is dismissed with costs.