' This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan calls in question the order dated 8-5-1990 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, whereby he accepted appeal against the order, dated 5-9-1987 passed by the learned Rent Controller in an ejectment matter.
2. Briefly, the facts are that respondent No,2 filed an ejectment petition against the predecessor-in- interest of the petitioners on grounds of default, subletting, damage and nuisance. The application was resisted by him. The petitioner also denied the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The learned Rent Controller dismissed the application vide order dated 9-5- 1987 holding that relationship of landlord and tenant was not established between the parties. On appeal the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore after re-appreciating the evidence on record, reversed the finding of the learned Rent Controller on the issue of relationship of landlord and tenant by setting aside the order of the learned Rent Controller and accepted the appeal filed by respondent No, 2 with a direction to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners to hand over vacant possession of the disputed property to the contesting respondent.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that Syed Qadeer Ahmad appeared before the learned Rent Controller as P.W.1. He was re-examined, by the learned lower appellate authority as P.W.4 when he produced the rent deed (Exh.P.W.4/1) which could not have been taken into consideration inasmuch as, the alleged signatures of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners on it were not admitted.
4. The contention has no force. Qadeer Ahmad R.W.4 appeared before the learned Additional District Judge and deposed that he was scribe of the rent deed (Exh.P.W.4/1) which was attested by Ch. Rashid Ahmad and Syed Nisar Ahmad and both the marginal witnesses were dead. In the cross-examination he denied the suggestion that Exh.P.W.4/1 was not the rent deed. The statement of Qadeer Ahmad (P.W.1) was not believed by the learned Rent Controller, but the learned lower appellate Court after re-appreciating evidence on record, believed his statement which was within its competence. The question raised by learned counsel for the petitioners relates to appreciation of evidence and no non-reading or misreading of any material evidence has been found. The impugned order is based on re-appraisal of evidence on record, which suffers from no legal infirmity.
' In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. The petitioners are allowed four months' time to vacate the disputed premises.