' This writ petition calls in question the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge on 22- 2-1989 whereby ejectment order dated 8-10-1988 passed by the learned Rent Controller was upheld.
2. The application out of which this writ petition has arisen, was filed sometimes in November, 1983 on grounds of default and bona fide personal need of the respondent-landlord/Abdul Rashid claiming that the petitioner-tenant had not made the payment from August, 1983 to October, 1983 and that after his retirement from service the landlord needs/requires the disputed shop for his personal occupation to carry out business for earning his livelihood. The present petitioner denied the relationship of landlord and tenant contending that the property in dispute was a part of Waqf Alal Aulad and payment of the rental has always been made by him to the Mutawali/Mutawalis of the said property. It is clear from the record appended to the present petition that at two occasions between 1984 to April, 1988 two orders of ejectment were passed against the petitioner and on both occasions the learned appellate . Court remanded the case for a fresh decision firstly after framing an additional issue and lastly with the simple observation of a fresh decision. The order dated 8-10- 1988 was passed by a learned Rent Controller after taking into account and considering the evidence produced by the parties. It was observed that no evidence was produced to discharge the onus of Issue No,2 (additional issue) by the petitioner-tenant and that having accepted the payment of rental to the landlord he could not be permitted to deny the relationship under issue No,1.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has been content with the submission that the evidence on record has been misread. When asked to point out the alleged misreading he could not lay his hand on any bit of the deposition of the only witness examined in this case on commission, namely, Muhammad Shafi C.W.1 whose evidence was also considered in its minutest details while holding that the petitioner-tenant has miserably failed to discharge the onus of Issue No,2.
4. In the absence of any jurisdictional error in the exercise of powers by either respondent No,2 or respondent No,3, this petition is totally misconceived and is accordingly dismissed in limine.