' Landlords/respondents Nos.1 to 5 filed eviction petition in the Court of learned Rent Controller, Peshawar on 24-3-1999 for eviction of petitioner from Shop No,1 situated at Gulshan Market, Kohati Gate, Church Road, Peshawar City. The said eviction petition was resisted by petitioner/tenant by filing written statement. The learned Rent Controller after framing issues, recording pro and contra evidence of the parties accepted the eviction petition vide judgment/order, dated 25-2-2000. The petitioner/tenant was directed to vacate the shop in question. Feeling aggrieved with the said judgment and order, the petitioner filed appeal in the Court of learned District Judge Peshawar which was entrusted to Additional District Judge-IV, Peshawar who vide judgment and order, dated 13-3-2002 dismissed the appeal. The petitioner/tenant has now filed writ petition in hand assailing the judgments and orders of the Courts below.
2. Mr. Abdul Aziz Kundi, the learned counsel representing the petitioner argued that respondents/landlords were in possession of other shops situated in the same market and even one shop was rented out to a tenant on 20-4-1999 i,e, during the pendency of the eviction petition The landlords failed to prove as to why shop which is in occupation of petitioner was required. The learned Courts below failed to appreciate this aspect of the case.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the record annexed with the writ petition.
4. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there were other shops in the same market and the respondents Nos.1 to 5/landlords have failed to prove as to why the shop in question was required has no force at all. The landlord has a complete option to choose any of his properties occupied by tenants to avail of the personal requirement. In this regard reliance can be safely placed on dicta laid down by august Supreme Court of Pakistan in S.M. Nooruddin and 9 others v. SAGA Printers 1998 SCM R 2119 it was held:-- "The law is too well-established on the point viz that a landlord has a complete option to choose from one of the several tenements occupied by tenant to avail of the personal requirement and the discretion is not assailable, except in the rarest cases of bad faith."
4. It is by now established law that Rent Controller may pass an eviction order on the ground of personal use in favour of landlord against the tenant if the claim of the landlord is bona fide and his requirement is in good faith. The evidence available on record shows that respondent No,2 requires the shop in question bonafidely for his personal business. His father Ashfaq Ahmad had expired in 1994, he had left his Education in the year 1996 and is jobless since then. No doubt the respondents Nos. I to 5 own 19 shops in Gulshan Market where the shop in dispute is situated but there is nothing on record to show that any of the shop is in possession of respondents or any other shop was lying vacant in the said Market. The statement made by Mst. Farzana Begum, P.W.2 and Adeel Ahmad P.W.3 on oath could not be shattered in the cross-examination and there is nothing on record to indicate that respondent No,2 was running any business in any other shop. Their statement on oath regarding the bona fide requirement of respondent No,2 was consistent with the averments of eviction petition and could not be. Shaken in cross-examination or disproved or rebutted. This fact was sufficient to prove the bona fide requirement of respondent No,2 (landlord).
Wisdom in this regard is drawn from Jehangir Rustam Kalia v. State Bank of Pakistan 1992 SCM R 1296, F.R. Irani & Co. v. Begum Feroz 1996 SCM R 1178; Muhammad Shuaib Alam v. Muhammad Iqbal 2000 SCM R 903, Sardar Nabeel Wali v. Additional District Judge/Appellate Authority Sahiwal and others PLD 2000 SC 829 and Iqbal Book Depot v. Khatib Ahmad and 6 others 2001 SCM R 1197.
5. Not only the learned Rent Controller after appreciating the evidence available on record came to the conclusion that the shop in question is required by the landlord but the learned Appellate Court also on reappraisal of evidence has concurred with the findings of the learned Rent Controller. This Court does not sit as the Court of appeal and cannot decide whether evidence sufficed for conclusion arrived and is not at all obliged to go into the merits of the case de novo reappraise and assess evidence on question of personal need of the landlord. Wisdom in this respect has been sought from Messrs Muhammadia Medical Hall, Khan Arm Dealers through Khurshid Alam v.
Mahmoodul Hassan and 3 others NLR 1982 SCJ 23. We while exercising our Constitutional jurisdiction cannot disturb the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts below on reappraisal of evidence unless it is shown that the Courts below either misread the evidence or perversely appreciated the evidence. Merely because of fresh appraisal of the evidence this Court would reach a different 'conclusion is no ground to disturb the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts below.
6. Mst. Farzana Begum (P.W.2) and Adeel Ahmad (P.W.3) for whom the shop in question is required have stated that on vacation of shop in question they will not give the same on rent to anybody else and in that regard they were ready to give surety to the satisfaction of the Court. Subsection
(4) of section 13 of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 provides full protection to the petitioner/tenant. In case the landlords fail to occupy the shop in question within one month of the date of obtaining possession, the tenant who has been affected may apply to the Controller for an order directing that the possession should be restored to him.
7. We have not been able to find out any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgments/orders and would not like to interfere into the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts of competent jurisdiction.
' Resultantly, the writ petition in hand alongwith C.M. No,460 of 2002 is dismissed in limine.