' This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 arises out of an application under section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 filed by the petitioners against respondent No,1 alleging that he was in possession of the shop bearing No,l667- B situate in Bazar Sathan, Chowk Lohari Mandi, Lahore as tenant under them. The petitioners averred that they had purchased the property in question through a registered deed of sale dated 22nd of January, 1974 and respondent No,l, who was their tenant, had failed to pay the rent due and the shop was required by the petitioners for their personal need. In the written statement filed by respondent No,1 he denied that he was a tenant under the petitioners but instead pleaded that he was in possession of the property since 1954 after having constructed it himself. The Rent Controller framed a preliminary issue, recorded the evidence of the parties and after appraising the same held that the respondent was not a tenant under the petitioners. As a consequence of this finding, the application for eviction filed by petitioners was dismissed on 15th December, 1988. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners filed an appeal but the same was rejected by the Additional District Judge on 2nd of April, 1989. Hence this petition.
2. I have heard Mr. Ahmad Wahid Khan, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioners. No one has entered appearance for the respondent.
3. The leamed counsel for the petitioners contends that both the Rent Controller as also the Additional District Judge have misread the evidence especially the statement of P.W.1, Jaafar Ali and have erred in observing that it was proved from the statement of that witness that no P.T.D, was issued in favour of the petitioners. This grievance of the leamed counsel is correct to a certain extent as from the statement of R.W.1 it appears that the record produced by him was incomplete and he could offer no explanation for the omission of certain property numbers in the relevant register. The fact, however, remains that the onus to prove that the respondent was a tenant under them was on the petitioners which they failed to discharge. They had claimed to be the landlords on the basis of a deed of sale in their favour and attornment by the respondent by paying therent.
The oral evidence produced by the petitioners was considered by both the Courts below and was discarded as being not convincing. Such a finding cannot be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction nor is it permissible to reappraise the evidence on a controverted question of fact.
4. As regards the title of the petitioners it is to be seen that property was admittedly evacuee in nature and according to the petitioners it was transferred to Muhammad Yasin from whom they purchased the same through a registered deed of sale. However, no proof was produced to show that Muhammad Yasin was in fact the transferee of the property. The only reliance of the petitioners in this behalf was on the sale-deed which contains an averment that the P.T.D, had been issued in favour of the transfer. As no such document was produced by I the petitioner, the Courts below were justified in drawing an inference against the petitioners and mere recital in the sale-deed could not be considered sufficient to discharge the onus placed upon the petitioners.
5. There is thus no merit in this petition. However, as the dispute between the parties essentially relates to the title of the property, it appears to be in the interest of justice that the petitioners be permitted to have their title established having resort to the Civil Court.
As a result of what has been stated above, this petition fails and is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs subject to the observations made above.