' This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan calls in question the order dated 12-3-1988, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 29-3-1987 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Lahore, directing him to vacate the premises in dispute and hand over vacant possession of the same to respondent No,1.
2. Briefly, the facts are that respondent No,1 filed an application for ejectment against the petitioner in respect of commercial premises known as 16-C Queens Road, Lahore, on the ground of personal need. The application was resisted by the petitioner. The learned Rent Controller in view of pleadings of the parties and after appreciating evidence on record, accepted the application vide order dated 29-3-1987.
3. On appeal the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore after appreciating the evidence concurred with the finding of fact that the premises in dispute was required in good faith by respondent No,1 for his personal need. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed vide judgment dated 12-3-1988.
4. Sh. Muhammad Shafi, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the points raised in the memorandum of appeal were not considered in its entirety, inasmuch as, a plea was taken in the memorandum of appeal that respondent No,1 intended to achieve enhancement in rent which was refused by the petitioner herein and, therefore, by way of counterblast the ejectment application was filed after a lapse of about 4-1/2 months. The contention has no force.
5. A bare perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Additional District Judge would show that this aspect of the matter was duly considered and repelled.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next argued that separate proceedings under section 4 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance were initiated by the petitioner for fixation of fair rent for the disputed premises which was enhanced from Rs,4,800 to Rs,6,000 per month vide order dated 29-3-1987 and the respondent landlord having failed to impugn the said order and instead accepted the enhanced rent the learned Rent Controller as well as the learned Additional District Judge ought to have enquired into this aspect of the matter and failure to do so has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice. The contention has no force.
7. The tenor of the order of the learned Addl. District Judge shows that this matter was duly considered and repelled, as is apparent from the following observations made in the impugned order "It does not stand to reason that the landlord shall refuse enhanced rent from the Bank particularly when, as contended on behalf of the bank, the landlord himself wanted nothing but enhancement of rent. If it was so then the landlord would have accepted the offer of enhanced rent instead of seeking ejectment of the tenant."
8. Be that as it may, the question relates to appreciation of evidence which I cannot be undertaken in the exercise of writ jurisdiction.
9. In view of the above, I find no force in the writ petition which is hereby dismissed but the parties shall bear their own costs. The petitioner is, however, granted two months time to vacate the premises.