MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J. - Through the institution of the present Constitutional petition, the petitioner/tenant has called in question the judgment dated 4.12.2001, whereby the learned Additional District Judge/Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal, find by the petitioner, and maintained the ejectment order dated 18.4.2001, passed by the learned Rent Controller, through which he, while accepting the ejectment petition, find by the respondent, directed the petitioner to hand-over the vacant possession of the disputed premises to the respondent within a period of two months.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Constitutional petition are that Meran Din, respondent, find an ejectment petition under Section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, against the petitioner, seeking his eviction from house No. 19 (described in the plaint), on the grounds of non-payment of rent since April, 1995 and the bona fide personal need of the respondent. The said ejectment petition was contested by the petitioner, inter alia, contending that he has paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as 'Pagri' and that, in fact, the rate of rent is Rs. 900/- and as the landlord did, not issue the receipts, therefore, the rate of rent in the ejectment petition has incorrectly been described as Rs. 1,800/- per month.
3. Out of the divergent pleadings of the parties the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues:-
(1) Whether the respondent is wilful defaulter? OPA.
(2) Whether the petitioner required the disputed shop for personal need in good faith and bona finely? OPA.
(3) Whether the petition is mala fidel OPR.
(4) Whether the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands? OPR.
(5) Relief.
4. The parties led evidence and the learned Rent Controller accepted the ejectment petition vide order dated 18.4.2000 and directed the petitioner to hand-over the vacant possession of the house in question to the respondent. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner find an appeal before the appellate authority, but without any success as his appeal was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge vide judgment dated 4.12.2001, hence the present Constitutional petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring to the statements of the witnesses, has asserted that the impugned order/judgment are the result of misreading and non-reading of evidence and that in view of the evidence produced by both the parties it is evident that neither the petitioner has committed default nor the premises in question are required for the bona fide personal need of the respondent, It has further been contended that the learned Rent Controller without determining the rate of rent proceeded to pass the ejectment order, which has erroneously been upheld by the learned appellate authority, In the above perspective it has vehemently been urged by the learned counsel that both the Courts below have erred in law in deciding the case against the petitioner, thus, both the judgments are not sustainable in law.
6. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the evidence on record sufficiently establish that the petitioner has committed default and that the respondent requires the premises in question in good faith for his personal use. He has further contended that in the present set of circumstances the writ petition is not maintainable'.
7. Record of the case shows that in order to prove both the issues, the onus of which was rightly placed on the respondent/landlord, he has produced A.W. Muhammad Tufail, A.W. 2 Pervaiz Ahmad, A.W. 3 Muhammad ljaz and the respondent himself appeared as A.W.
4. In order to rebut the evidence the petitioner produced Najma Parveen R.W. 1, Muhammad Anwar Shuja R.W. 2, while the petitioner himself appeared as R.W. 3.
8. Upon the examination of the impugned order/judgment I am of the considered view that both the Courts below, before passing the impugned order/judgment, have properly and amply embarked upon the evidence on record, appreciated the same in its perspective and have reached a proper and legal conclusion. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties have duly been dealt with by both the Courts below in deciding both the crucial issues. Both the Courts have discussed the evidence on record and rightly came to the conclusion that the respondent was able to produce sufficient evidence on record to establish that the petitioner has committed default and that, in fact, the premises in question is required in good faith for personal need of the respondent and consequently passed the ejectment order. Although this Court, in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction, is not required to re-appraise the evidence on record, yet in the interest of justice and to arrive at a proper conclusion. I have scanned through the evidence on record and is of the view that -bot the Courts have rightly appreciated the evidence on record, It has been established on record that the petitioner had committed default and that the premises is required for the bona fide personal need of the respondent, to which no exception can be taken by the petitioner. Both the Courts have properly and legally appreciated the evidence on record and while taking into consideration the evidence produced by both the parties rightly and concurrently came to the conclusion that the respondent has been able to discharge the onus of both the issues, which could not be rebutted by the petitioner through the production of his own evidence.
9. From the examination of the impugned order/judgment and the record of the case I do not find that the impugned order/judgment are either arbitrary or without jurisdiction or passed in excess of jurisdiction by both the Courts below. Even during the arguments the learned counsel could not point out any jurisdictional defect/error in both the judgments/orders. There is no cavil to the proposition that both the Courts below have the jurisdiction to decide the matter and they have decided the causes in accordance with law, that too after properly taking into consideration the record of the case and the law on the subject, It may be noted that in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction this Court has only to see whether a Tribunal or Court has acted without jurisdiction or violated the statute or law laid down by the superior Courts. This Court, in such like cases, is not called upon to re-appraise the evidence and the writ petitions are not to be decided in the manner appeals are to be heard or/and decided, In this regard, Muhammad Sharif and another Vs. Muhammad Afzal Sohail etc. (PLD 1981 S.C. 246) and Abdul Rehman Bajwa Vs. Sultan and 9 others (PLD 1981 S.C. 522) can be referred.
10. It has been held in Secretary to the Government of the Punjab, Forest Department, Punjab, Lahore through Divisional Forest Officer Vs. Ghulam Nabi and 3 others (PLD 2001 S.C. 41 5) that when the forums available in hierarchy under the relevant law had decided all the controversial questions on the basis of record and in accordance with law, then the High Court should not interfere in the matter and could not go into the questions of fact in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction, It has further been held in the afore-noted judgment of Secretary to the Government of the Punjab, Forest Department that the High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction cannot re-appraise the evidence and come to its own independent findings whereas findings of facts have been recorded by authority below after giving good reasons.
11. Applying the aforesaid yardstick and the law declared by the Apex Court I do not find that either of the Courts have flouted the provisions of law or failed to follow the law relating thereto as laid down by the superior Courts or acted without jurisdiction. Even the learned counsel could not point out any misreading or non-reading of evidence on record.
12. In view of the above, I am not inclined to exercise my Constitutional jurisdiction in the matter, which is otherwise discretionary and equitable. For the foregoing reasons the writ petition is devoid of any merits, both the orders/judgments passed by both the Courts below do not call for any interference by this Court, thus, this petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.