' A petition for eviction of respondent No,1 from an urban residential property, brought under the provisions of section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 on the grounds of default in payment of rent and damage to the quarter in dispute and personal requirement of the landlord was contested and dismissed by learned Controller through his order dated 13-5-1990 with the conclusions adverse to the landlord reached on merits.
2.. Appeal thereagainst filed by the landlord was heard and dismissed on 10-10-1990 by a learned Additional District Judge upon affirming the findings of fact reached by the Controller on merits.
This writ petition was admitted to regular hearing on 27-10-1990 with the order as under:-- "The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the findings on issue No,4 recorded by the Additional District Judge and the Rent Controller are contrary to law declared by the superior Courts requires further consideration. Admit. Notice."
3. Issue No,4 relates to the alleged personal requirement of the landlord and, in the course of hearing of this writ petition, learned counsel has not referred to any such case as has been mentioned in the admitting note but he has desired to have the evidence adduced before the Controller re-assessed. This, however, is not permissible to be done in this extraordinary original jurisdiction conferred on this Court by the Constitution inasmuch as the orders passed by the authorities invested with special jurisdiction for the purpose relate to questions of fact and they have proceeded upon due consideration of the record. There is no error of law or jurisdiction alleged to be involved in reaching those findings, therefore, they have to be regarded sacrosanct for the purposes hereof. The mere fact that the findings thus reached do not turn out to be in accordance with the expectations of a litigant, who believes that conclusion to the contrary may also be possible to be reached on the basis of same evidence, is not an adequate premise in law for exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction.
4. This case actually gets concluded with the concurrent findings of fact reached by two statutory authorities in exercise of their original and appellate jurisdiction. No case exists for entering into the exercise of reappraisal of evidence led below.
5. Result of the foregoing is that there is no substance in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed with costs.