This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan calls in question the order dated 25-2-1991 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sargodha, whereby the appeal against the order dated 9-4-1989 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Sargodha, dismissing the ejectment petition filed by respondent No.3 was accepted.
2. The facts relevant for the disposal of this petition are that respondent No.3 filed an application for ejectment on 4-1-1987 under section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 on the ground of default and damage to property. The application was resisted by the petitioner. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:--
(1) Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant existed betweenthe parties from January 1984 to February, 1985? OPA.
(2) Whether the respondent has committed default in payment of rent since July 1984 till the filing of the petition? OPA.
(3) Whether the respondent has devalued the premises in dispute? OPA.
(4) Relief.
3. The trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record decided all the issues in favour of the petitioner and dismissed the ejectment application vide order dated 9-4-1989. On appeal the learned Additional District Judge, Sargodha, vide order dated 25-2-1991 accepted the appeal of respondent No.3 herein and set aside the order of the Rent Controller and ordered ejectment of the petitioner. The petitioner challenged this order by means of Writ Petition No. 2985 of 1989 whereupon the case was remanded on the question of court-- fee vide order dated 29-1-1990. In consequence, the learned Additional District Judge reheard the appeal and vide order dated 25-2- 1991 reversed the findings of the learned Rent Controller on issues Nos.l and 2 and held that there was default in the payment of rent from July 1984 to May 1985.
4. Ch. Nazir Ahmad, Advocate, appearing on behalf of Ch. Hamid-ud--Din, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that while reversing the findings on issue No.l, the learned Additional District Judge has not considered some material pieces of evidence namely:
(I) the admission of the wife of the landlord A.W.2 that for the disputed period the house was vacated by the tenant and occupied by the daughters of the landlord for their education;
(ii) the respondent landlord was directed by the learned Rent Controller vide order dated 1-3-1988 to produce duplicate rent receipts in Court from January, 1--84 to June 1984 but he failed to produce the same;
(iii) the landlord's cross-examination as P.W.2 shows that rent tendered through money orders Exhs. R-1 to R-3 was not received by him because for this period his plea was that the disputed premises were not given or rent after expiry of the lease period and that he was unauthorised occupant;
(iv) that P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 have supported the defence of the petitioner/tenant that during the disputed period the premises were vacated and occupied by the landlord's daughters.
5. I have gone through the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether there is any misreading or non-consideration of any material piece of evidence as alleged by learned counsel for the petitioner and I find none. It is the case of the petitioner himself in reply to eviction application that he was a tenant under the respondent-landlord through rent deed dated 3-2- 1983, which was effective between the parties for a period of eleven months expiring in December 1983 at the rate of Rs.130 per month, but in January 1984, the petitioner got the disputed property vacated for his children who were to appear in B.A. examination at Sargodha and that in March 1985, the premises in dispute were re-let to him at the rate of Rs.200 per month on basis of an oral agreement and that the respondent landlord received rent for the months of March and April 1985 at the rate of Rs.200 per month and thereafter declined. Consequently, the rent was sent to him through money orders, which he did not receive. Thereafter, he had been depositing the same in the Court. However, a contrary plea was raised vide paragraph 4 to the reply in the following manner:--
6. The learned Additional District Judge after appreciating the evidence on record, recorded a finding of fact that after July 1984 till May, 1985, the petitioner has got made the payment of rent to the respondent/landlord. The plea taken by the petitioner that he was tenant of the disputed premises from January 1984 to March 1985, was also found to be false. Clearly the petitioner is proved to be defaulter and a finding of fact recorded by the learned Additional District Judge is based on proper appreciation of evidence on record and does not suffer from any misreading.
Resultantly the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed, but there shall be no order as to costs.