' IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, J.--- Shortly narrated the facts constituting the background of instant writ petition are, that Maulana Hafeezur Rehman son of Maulana Saddrush Shaheed, resident of Bannu City, Bannu, respondent No,1 herein, filed applications in the Court of Rent Controller, Bannu, seeking ejectment of Abbas Khan and others. Petitioners herein, from suit shops on the ground of default in payment of rent and for recovery of arrears of rent. The applications were hotly contested and the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was denied. Issues were framed and the parties produced evidence by way of submitting affidavits. Upon consideration of the material, learned Rent Controller, Bannu came to the conclusion that relationship of landlord and tenant has been satisfactorily established and the petitioners have committed default in payment of rent. Vide judgment and decree, dated 15-10-2001, the applications were accepted and the petitioners were directed to hand over vacant possession of the suit premises to respondent Hafeezur Rehman. However, the claim of the respondent for recovery of arrears of rent was declined and he was directed to approach the Court of competent jurisdiction in the matter.
Feeling aggrieved, petitioners preferred appeals which were dismissed on 23-12-2002 by learned District Judge, Bannu and the order of ejectment was maintained.
2. Mr. Rustam Khan Kundi, Advocate for the petitioners, described the entire history of the case and attempted to argue that the findings returned by the forums below are the result of misreading and non-reading of the evidence and the matter has been dealt with in a cursory manner with it application of judicious mind. The learned counsel disputed the ownership of late Maulana Saddrush Shaheed and contended that the suit premises belonged to Auqaf Department and respondent No,1 has no concern with the same. To substantiate the pleas he placed reliance on Province of Punjab through Education Secretary and another v. Mufti Abdul Ghani PLD 1985 SC 1.
3. Messrs Gohar Zaman Kundi and S. Abid Hussain Bukhari, Advocates, for respondent No,1, on the contrary maintained that the concurrent findings of the Courts below are supported by actual evidence on the file and hardly warrant interference in Constitutional petition. Reliance was placed on Muhammad Sharif and others v. Muhammad Afzal Suhail and others PLD 1981 SC 246.
4. Having considered the arguments and submissions of learned counsel for the parties in the light of the evidence on record, we find ourselves in agreement with learned counsel for respondent No,1 that sufficient material consisting of agreement deeds, rent deeds and affidavits was, available on the file to substantiate the claim of respondent No,1 and prove the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between parties and default on the part of petitioners to make payment of rent and the concurrent findings are unexceptionable. Question pertaining appreciation of facts cannot be resorted to, in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction by this Court, for the simple reason that in doing so the petition shall be converted into a revision or second appeal and the very purpose of abolishing the second appeal and restricting the finality pertaining to the rent matters to first appeal shall stand frustrated. The august Supreme Court of Pakistan in Muhammad Sharif and another v. Muhammad Afzal Suhail and others PLD 1981 SC 246 observed:-- ' We have been noticing, of late, that notwithstanding the fact that the Legislature, in its wisdom, has abolished the second appeal in cases under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restrictions Ordinance and has made the orders of the District Judge as final, yet the parties, probably after obtaining legal advice, have taken to filing writ petitions in the High Court against the final order passed by the Appellate Court, merely to take another chance or to delay their eviction, hoping that the matter shall take considerable time to be disposed of or that in any case the High Court while dismissing their writ petition may be persuaded to allow further time for vacating the premises in question. The writ petitions are argued before the High Court as if they are regular second appeals and we notice that the learned Judge of the High Court takes great pains to reappraise the evidence and to consider each and every contention raised by the petitioner's side before deciding the petition without realizing that, more often than not, such petitioners are merely a device to circumvent the amendment in the law and defeat the obvious intention of the Legislature, namely, a speedy determination of cases under the Urban Rent Restrictions Ordinance.
Such frivolous applications not only cause the poor litigants to incur necessary expenditure but also result in the waste of valuable public time and should, therefore, be discouraged by the High Court. It has been repeatedly held that a Tribunal having jurisdiction to decide the matter is competent to decide it rightly or wrongly and the mere fact that another conclusion could be arrived at from evidence does not make it a case for interference in the exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction."
' The following observations were also made in Muhammad Hussain Munir and others v. Sikandar and others PLD 1974 SC 139:--- ' "It is wholly wrong to consider that the above Constitutional provision was designed to empower the High Court to interfere with the decision of a Court or Tribunal of inferior jurisdiction, merely because in its opinion the decision is wrong. In that case, it would make the High Court's jurisdiction indistinguishable from that exercisable in a full-fledged appeal, which plainly is not the intention of the Constitution-makers."
5. Expression "landlord" embodied in section 2 of the Ordinance is of wide amplitude, having larger connotation than the word "owners of land". Landlord might be one person or more than one person and so personal requirement of rented premises might be of one landlord or more than one landlord. Landlord covers in its fold not only person who actually receives rent but also who is entitled to receive rent, in one or more of the capacities. Thus, an owner who is entitled to receive rent would be landlord so also a person who is competent to receive rent on behalf or for the benefit of such landlord (owner) would also be landlord. The essential characteristics of the status of landlord and tenant are: (a) subordination to a landlord; and (b) liability to pay rent. Section 2(c) declares a person to be the landlord who for the time being is entitled to receive rent, in respect of any building whether on his own or on behalf of any other person. The expression "landlord" is not restricted to a person who actually receives rent, but also contemplates a person who is eligible to receive rent though he might have never in fact received rent. In this view of the matter, we are fortified by the observations made in Lal Zarin v. Niaz Muhammad Khan PLD 1984 Pesh. 46, Muhammad Salim v. Sardar Khan and others PLD 1984 Lah. 179, Syed Amjad Ali Shah v. Muhammad Afzal and 3 others PLD 1987 Lah. 280, Mst. Kalsoom Akhtar and others v. Muhammad Yaqoob PLD 1976 Kar. 992, S.A. Waheed v. Dayal Singh College Trust Society PLD 1955 Lah. 570, Muhammad Sharif v. The Additional Judge, Bahawalnagar and others 1989 CLC 2285, Province of Punjab through Secretary, Education and others v. Mufti Abdul Ghani PLD 1985 SC 1 and Messrs Urdu Digest Printers v. Hakeem Muhammad Idrees and others 1982 CLC 470. The learned counsel for the petitioners has laid great stress on the point that respondent has failed to prove his title over the property and has contended that admittedly the plot under the suit premises belonged to Municipal Committee. Bannu which was purchased by the father of respondent in 1972 on nominal price of Rs,200 and 64 shops were constructed thereon with the donation of general public and subsequently the shops were taken over by the Auqaf Department and therefore, the respondent does not have any title over the shops in question and as such he is devoid of the character of a landlord. He maintained that in fact one Maulana Minhajuddin is actual owner of suit shops and the petitioners are tenants under him. This argument flows from an erroneous assumption that a landlord has of necessity, to be the owner of the premises in question. Section 2 (ibid) declares a person to be the landlord who for the time being is entitled to receive rent. It does not insist that the condition of ownership of the building or rented premises should be fulfilled before a person could be the landlord of the premises in dispute. It is evident from the record that agreement deeds, rent deeds and affidavits were executed and the petitioners had been regularly making payment of rents to Maulana Saddrush Shaheed, owner of the disputed premises. It does not lie in the mouth of the petitioners at this stage to deny title of the landlord and refuse payment of rent. The plea seems to have been raised with sole purpose to escape liability. The mere fact that suits are pending in Civil Courts regarding status of Maulana Saddrush Shaheed about "Muhatamimship". By itself, cannot be considered a good ground, to exonerate the petitioners of the liability of paying rent or denying title of Maulana Saddrush Shaheed or his son Maulana Hafeezur Rehman, respondent No,1 regarding the suit shops.
6. In the wake of above discussion we find that orders of ejectment were competently and correctly passed by the forums below and no infirmity attaches to them. The writ petition fails which is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. The listed Civil Miscellaneous also meet the same fate.
The petitioner tenants shall hand over the vacant possession of the suit shops to respondent No,1 within thirty days from today.
' Above are the detailed reasons for our short order, dated 18-12-2003.