ABDUL RAHIM Versus MEHTAB AHMAD
The petitioner, Abdul Rahim, was moved this Constitutional petition praying therein that the orders dated 17‑11‑1986 and 16‑7‑1987 passed by the respondents No.2 and 3 respectively, may be declared without lawful authority and of no legal consequence.
2. The case in brief is that the petitioner is a tenant under the respondent No.l in respect of shop No. SW‑III‑40‑S‑44, situate in Islampura (Krishan Nagar), Lahore respondent No.l filed a petition for ejectment against the petitioner on the ground of default as well as personal need which petition was contested by the petitioner. The learned Rent Controller after recording the evidence passed an order of ejectment against the petitioner on the ground of personal need vide his order dated 17‑11‑1986. The petitioner went in appeal which was heard and dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge Lahore vide his order dated 16‑7‑1987.
3. The only point raised by the learned counsel is that the evidence of the petitioner has not at all been considered by the two learned Courts below and thereby a substantial injustice has been done to him. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there is a finding of fact having been arrived at by the learned Rent Controller as well as by the learned Additional District Judge. He stated that the entire evidence of the parties has been taken into consideration and thereafter the matter has been disposed of.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record very carefully. The learned Rent Controller as well as the learned Additional District Judge have considered each and every point raised by the petitioner before them and thereafter they have come to a finding of fact which finding of fact cannot be interfered with in the Constitutional jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any legal infirmity much less the jurisdictional defects in the impugned judgment of the learned Courts below. There is no substance in the petition which is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. However, the petitioner shall be given four months time to vacate the premises in question provided he continues paying rent to the landlord.
H . B . T . / A‑311/ L Petition dismissed