ADDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.--Petitioners seek leave to appeal against the order dated 29-8-2002 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi whereby Constitutional Petition No, 521 of 2002 filed by the petitioners-tenants was dismissed, rent case filed by the respondent was allowed 60 days' time to vacate the demised premises.
2. Respondent Sagheer Ahmad instituted Rent Case No,6 of 1998 against the petitioners asserting therein that he being the owner of Perwana Market constructed 12 shops on Plot No,G-1/117, Commercial Area, Liaquatabad, Karachi-Central. He being the new landlord issued notices under section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance') on 9-1-1997, 26-6-1997 and 29-12-1997 apprising the petitioners/tenants about his ownership of Shop No,8 of the demised premises and requiring them to tender the rent to him. He also demanded the premises for his bona fide personal use due to his unemployment for the last 8 years.
3. The petitioners contested the application and filed a joint written reply wherein they admitted relationship of landlord and tenant and claimed that for the first time they received notice under section 18 of the Ordinance on 26-6-1997. They tried to pay rent but the respondent refused to receive the same. As regards default in payment of rent, they stated therein that the rent up to July, 1997 had already been deposited in the name of the previous landlord in the Court but after receiving one notice they had started depositing rent in the name of respondent Saghir Ahmad in M.R.C. No,452 of 1997. According to them the respondent was not jobless as he had purchased the building for Rs,30,000,000.
4. Both the parties led their respective evidence and on conclusion of the hearing, the Rent Controller vide order dated 30-1-1999 dismissed the eviction application of the respondent.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the respondent filed F.R.A. No,130 of 2001 before the District Judge, Karachi Central, which was allowed on the ground of personal bona fide need of the respondent, vide judgment 'dated 10-4-2002, 60 days time, however, was granted to the petitioners to vacate the demised premises.
5. Feeling dissatisfied, petitioners invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 but without any success, hence this petition.
6. We have heard Hafiz Abdul Baqi, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners and gone through the record and the proceedings of the case in-minute particulars.
7. It is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the finding of fact recorded by the Appellate Court and affirmed by the learned High Court is quite contrary to the record and is based on mere assumptions, presumptions, misreading and non-appraisal of the evidence and the Courts below were not justified to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment of the Rent Controller. He urged that the respondent was the owner of a huge market consisting of 12 shops, owner in possession of Marble Factory No,-B-247 and other 4 Commercial Premises Nos.9/32, 9/34, 9/35 and 9/44, situated in Liaquatabad, Karachi.. He further argued that the Appellate Court and the learned High Court have failed to consider that no case was made out from the landlord's own version either on the ground of default or personal requirement. He further maintained that the respondent has not been able to establish a case of personal bona fide requirement of the demised premises through his own version. Lastly, he contended that the respondent was carrying on his business in his Marble Factory and the averments that he was jobless is quite contrary to the record, thus not entitled to claim eviction of the petitioners from demised premises for his personal bona fide need.
8. On a careful assessm ent of the evidence, we are of the considered view that the findings of fact recorded by the Appellate Court and affirmed by the High Court are based on correct and careful appraisal of evidence and the grounds urged stand conclusively determined by the judgments of the two Courts below. The statement of respondent on oath that the demised premises was required for his personal use was not controverted expressly by the petitioners. Mere allegation that the respondent has purchased a building and that he also runs a Marble Factory or carries on his business therein in the absence of any documentary proof is not a valid piece of evidence and cannot be considered for brushing aside genuine and bona fide claim of the landlord. The observation in the impugned judgment by the High Court that on petitioner's prayer for consideration of-new documents the offer to get the demised premises inspected by an Officer of that Court and to verify the documents regarding the other properties was not acceded to by the petitioners clearly suggests that they had no strong case to defend and were thus rightly no- suited. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to raise any question of law of general public importance emerging from the facts and circumstances of the case, thus in our view, no ground for grant of I leave is made out.
9. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed and leave refused.