MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J.- This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 arises out of an application under section 13 of the Punjab Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 filed by respondents No. I to l2 against the petitioners which was allowed by the Rent Controller on 16.9.1981 and by the Additional District Judge, Lahore, on 4.4.1983.
2. According to respondents No. 1 to l2, the petitioners were in possession of part of property bearing No. SE-IV-37-S-3, Abdul Karim Road, Qila Gujar Singh. Lahore which was transferred to their predecessor with the result that the petitioners became tenants under them and having failed to pay the rent, was liable to be ejected. The defence taken up by the petitioners, however, was that the property in theiroccupation bears No. SE 1V-44-S-I, Abdul Karim Rbad, Qila Gujar Singh, Lahore which was transferred to their predecessor, Ghulam Haider Shah and consequently there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between them. This plea was repelled both by the Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge, Lahore who came to the conclusion that the petitioners were in occupation of the property transferred to the predecessor of the respondents. This petition was admitted to regular hearing on 15.4.1985 on the ground that another Constitutional petition bearing No. 297-R/83 in which the same controversy was involved stood admitted to regular hearing. Thai petition was, however, dismissed by this Court on 24th April, 1995. .
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has reiterated that the petitioners were in occupation of part of the premises which stood transferred to their predecessor and not to the property which was transferred to the predecessor of respondents No. 1 to l2. This question is concluded by concurrent findings recorded by the Rent Controller as also the Additional District Judge, Lahore. A perusal of the judgment of the Additional District Judge shows full application of mind to the facts of the case and the evidence on the record. These findings purely on questions of facts are not liable to be interfered with in the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court, It was inter alia observed that it was clear from the CH form that Ghulam Haider Shah, the predecessor of the petitioners, had claimed transfer of property bearing No. SE- IV-44-S-I and that the disputed portion which was at the relevant time in occupation of respondents No. 10 to l2 was never applied for and that the said portion has already been treated as a part of property No. S-IV-37-S-3, the transfer of which was contested between the predecessor of respondents No. 1 to 9 and Jan Muhammad etc. Respondents No. 10 to l2. These findings are amply borne out from the evidence on record which call for no interference in the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.
In view of what has been stated above, this petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.