' HAMIDALI MIRZA, J.---This civil appeal by leave to this Court is directed against the judgment dated 20-4-1999 of a learned single Judge of the High Court of Sindh at Karachi in F.R.A. No,90 of 1992 M/s Interfurns Limited v. Mst. Amna Khatoon and others whereby the ejectment order dated 5- 1-1992 passed by IInd Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller Karachi East in Rent Case No,4265 of 1982 was maintained and the appeal was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that in or about October, 1992, one Abdul Karim, the predecessor-in- interest of the respondents, filed an ejectment application against the appellant-opponent in respect of a portion of the building comprising of Plot No,32/J, Block-6, PECHS, Karachi, consisting of one hall measuring about 1400 sq.Ft. And a courtyard measuring 2500 sq.Ft. With a boundary wall and a gate. During the proceedings before the Rent Controller, Abdul Karim, landlord, expired and consequently the L.Rs, (respondents I to 10) were brought on the record. After recording of the evidence, the Rent Controller, by his judgment dated 22-9-1988, dismissed the respondents' eviction application, against which order dated 22-9-1988, F.R.A. No,938 of 1988 was preferred before the Sindh High Court, which too was dismissed. Respondents filed C.A. No,125-K of 1989 before this Court which was disposed of on 20-5-1991, whereby case was remanded to the Rent Controller for decision on the point whether the appellant-tenant had violated the terms and conditions on which the premises was let out to him by making additions and/or raising constructions without written permission. The Rent Controller, after hearing the parties, as, per order dated 5-1-1992 held that the appellants had carried out the additions and alterations without written consent of the respondents-landlords and thus, committed breach of the conditions of tenancy agreement and accordingly ordered their ejectment. Against the said order appellants preferred F.R.A. No,90 of 1992 before the High Court of Sindh, Karachi, which was also dismissed by a learned Single Judge on 25-5-1998. Instant appeal has been preferred against the said judgment.
3. Leave was granted by this Court on 14th July, 1999 to consider following contentions:-- ' "The contentions of Mr. Khalilur Rehman, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing for the petitioner, inter alia, are that, both the trial Court and the High Court have misread the evidence available on the record, the requisite permission for carrying out the additions, alterations and repairs was available in and apparent from the petitioner's letters Exh.A/3 and Exh. And the endorsement and signatures, of A/4 said Abdul Karim thereon and that the petitioner had neither contravened any provision of the terms of any agreement nor that of the relevant law. The learned counsel further submits that as a result of these constructions, alterations and repairs not only the material value and utility of the premises had been enhanced but that some of these were necessary for the sustenance of the existing structure and use of the premises.
' Leave is granted to consider the contentions raised by the learned counsel. Status quo to be maintained during the pendency of the appeal."
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
' Only contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that both the Courts below have misread the evidence and consequently arrived at wrong conclusion.
' Conversely learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that there was no misreading of evidence on record by both the Courts below. He submitted that concurrent findings of the two Courts below are based on proper appreciation of evidence and therefore, no interference is called for by this Court. He has placed reliance upon Alif Din v. Khadim Hussain 1980 SCM R 767; Umar Din v. Fazal Muhammad 1980 SCM R 906; Fayyaz All Khan v. Muhammad Sharif 1981 SCM R 545; Muhammad Anwar Sipra v. Muhammad Din PLD 1981 SC 491 and Fateh Muhammad v. Ahmad Nasir Khan 1988 SCM R 689.
5. Details of violations in respect of raising of construction with additions and alterations have been enumerated in para. 9 of the ejectment application and the same have been reiterated by respondent Saeed Ahmed Khan in paragraphs 5 to 11 of his affidavit-in-evidence and said testimony could not be discredited in the cross-examination. Asif Luqmani filed affidavit on behalf of the appellants in evidence but during cross-examination he admitted that proper construction was to be a temporary construction; that no written permission for raising RCC construction was given by the respondents-landlords and that it was oral. Para. 4 of the agreement dated 31-12-1976 provided that the lessee (appellant) shall be entitled to use the demised premises for commercial purposes and shall further be entitled to make additions or alterations with prior consent in writing from the lessor at his own expenses. The letter dated 7-1-1977 written by the appellant-tenant to the respondents stated that all construction would be temporary so that it could easily be pulled down if so desired. Another letter dated 10-1-1977 written by the appellant/tenant to the respondents/landlords also stated that all the construction would be temporary so that the same could be pulled down. The endorsement made on the margin- of the above two letters would show that approval was accorded with regard to the raising of temporary construction. Letter dated 13- 11-1979 written by the appellant addressed to respondents/landlord bearing signature of the respondent-landlord on the margin shows that in place of figures Rs,300 an amount of Rs,200 has been substituted. Just below the signature of respondent Abdul Karim Khan there appears following endorsement.
' "P.S. At present we have started work on the pillars inside, which however, are not costing much."
' It is rightly contended that note mentioned above was subsequently added as it was not signed by the respondent/landlord in token of acceptance of its contents.
6. Learned Rent Controller in the order dated 5-1-1992 has observed:-- ' "From the above discussed evidence it is clear that no prior written permission was obtained by the opponent for raising construction and making alterations and additions. This failure clearly amounts to infringement of the said condition in the agreement. In this regard I would rely on 1984 CLC page No,1364 and PLD 1981 SC page No,491."
7. Learned single Judge in the judgment dated 20-4-1999 has observed:-- ' "All these documents and evidence available on record reveal that the appellant was making additions and alterations of his own in contravention of the terms of agreement."
8. On examination of the evidence, we find that there has been no misreading or non-reading of the evidence-on-record. The two Courts below have arrived at the conclusion after proper assessm ent of evidence-on-record that the appellant/tenant carried out the additions and alterations of permanent nature in violation of the terms and conditions of the tenancy agreement between the parties for which no written permission was obtained. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to show that the concurrent findings arrived at by the two Courts below are based on misreading or non-reading of material evidence. We notice that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two Courts below are based on proper appreciation and construction of evidence-on-record. In fact there has been no misreading or non-reading of evidence, therefore, no interference is called for. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed. However, the appellants are allowed a period of 120 days to vacate the premises subject to the payment of rent and other charges.