' Respondents Nos.3 and 4 are tenants in respect of Shop No,B-VII-S2-24 situate in Old Bazar, Nankana Sahib, Sheikhupura, under the petitioners at a monthly rent of Rs,100. On 15-5-1976, the petitioners applied to the Rent Controller under section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, seeking the eviction of the respondents from the shop on the grounds that they had damaged the property; that the property was required by the petitioners for their own use; and that the respondents had defaulted in the payment of rent. In their written reply, the respondents controverted the allegations and also raised certain preliminary objections which led to the framing of the relevant issues.
2. On the basis of the evidence led before him, the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the petitioners had failed to prove that the premises were required by them for their own personal use.
All other issues were also answered against the petitioners-landlords. Consequently the ejectment petition was dismissed on 25-10-1982. Against this order the petitioners filed an appeal but remained unsuccessful as the same was dismissed by the District Judge, Sheikhupura, on 4-1-1983.
They have now come before this Court byfiling this Constitutional petition.
3. Mr. Jariullah Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that both the Rent Controller as also the District Judge, have misdirected themselves by deciding the ejectment petition on the basis of irrelevant considerations like failure of the landlords to specify the purpose for which the shop was required by them. It was also complained by the learned counsel that the evidence has been misread. In the last, it was urged that the judgments rendered by the Rent Controller and the District Judge, are contrary to the law declared by, the superior Courts.
4. Ch. Muhammad Hassan, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, maintained that concurrent findings of fact recorded by the tribunals below are not liable to be interfered with in Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court and the evidence led by the parties cannot be re- appraised. Learned counsel also submitted that it stood proved on the record that the landlords were occupying another shop suitable for their needs and, therefore, they were not entitled to have the shop in question vacated for their personal use.
5. After heating the learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the appeal filed by the petitioners has not been decided in accordance with law by the District Judge. While disposing of this appeal, two serious legal errors were committed by him, first, that he gave undue importance to the omission of the landlords to specify the nature of the business which they intended to carry on in the shop in dispute and to disclose that they were occupying another shop; and second, that there is no independent application of mind by the District Judge who has merely reproduced the findings of the Rent Controller though in his own words.
6. As regards the first point, a perusal of the judgment of the District Judge" shows that he has mainly decided the appeal on the basis that the landlords should have mentioned the nature of the business which they intended to carry on in the premises in question. It was also noted that the landlords had not disclosed that they were in possession of another shop and for this reason also, they were A liable to fail. The view taken by the District Judge is clearly contrary to law. The Supreme Court in its recent authority in Haji Mohibullah & Co. And others v. Khawaja Bahauddin 1990 SCMR 1070 has repelled, similar contentions raised before it. It was observed, that for a landlord seeking ejectment of a tenant on the ground of his personal bona fide need, it was not a legal requirement to disclose in the ejectment petition nature of the business for which he requires the premises in dispute. It was further held that failure on the part of the landlord seeking ejectment of non-residential property to mention in his ejectment petition that he was not occupying similar commercial property in the same area suitable for his needs, would not be fatal to his case.
7. So far as the second point is concerned, the operative part of the judgment of the District Judge is almost the same as that of the Rent Controller. The District Judge has merely rephrased the reasoning of the Rent Controller. There is no independent appraisal of the evidence. The judgment of the District Judge is, therefore, not sustainable on this ground also.
8. Before parting with the case, a notice may be taken of the plea raised by the learned counsel for the respondents which has prevailed with the District Judge that as the memorandum of appeal before the District Judge was not properly stamped, no relief could be granted to the landlord. This argument of the learned counsel runs counter to the judgment of the Supreme Court reported as Siddique Khan and 2 others v. Abdul Shakur Khan and another (PLD 1984 SC 289) in which it has been ruled that if a plaint or memorandum of appeal is undervalued or is incorrectly stamped, opportunity must be allowed to the party to make up the deficiency by supplying the requisite stamps. It was also held that insufficiency of court-fee has no connection with the plea of limitation.
' As a result of what has been said above, this petition is accepted. The impugned order of the District Judge, Sheikhupura, dated 4-1-1983 is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect with the result that the appeal filed by the petitioners shall be deemed to be pending before him and shall be decided afresh.
' The parties shall appear before the District Judge on 3-3-1991.
' As the parties have been litigating in different Courts for the last 15 years, it is directed that the appeal shall be disposed of within the month of March, 1991. Compliance of this order shall be reported to the Registrar of this Court.
No order as to costs.