' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 10-1-2002 whereby a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dismissed the civil revision filed by the petitioner and maintained the determinations of the two Courts below i.e, the learned Civil Judge, Faisalabad, and the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad.
2. Facts briefly are that the respondent Muhammad Boota filed a suit for possession on 10-4-1998 against the petitioner qua the earlier filed a petition for ejectment against the. Petitioner, which was accepted by the learned Rent Controller. However, the learned First Appellate Court vide its judgment dated 6-3-1988 treated the petitioner as an unauthorized occupant and held him not a tenant under the respondent. Faced with this situation, the respondent filed the aforesaid suit. The petitioner controverted the same. Issues were framed and the parties led their evidence. The learned Civil Judge, Faisalabad, through his judgment dated 11-3-1989 decreed the suit. The petitioner filed an appeal assailing the above judgment, which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad, vide his judgment dated 5-1-1992. Civil Revision No,534/D of 1992 filed by the petitioner before the Lahore High Court also met the same fate as it was dismissed by a learned Single Judge through his judgment dated 10-1-2002, impugned herein. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.
3. We have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the entire material placed on record with his assistance. It is reflected from the perusal thereof that the petitioner paid the rent of the disputed property to the respondent till 1981 whereafter he stopped the same. The respondent, as already stated, filed an ejectment petition, which was allowed by the learned Rent Controller on 9-12-1987. However, on appeal the learned First Appellate. Court reversed the finding of the trial Court and held the petitioner, at the most, as an unauthorized occupant.
4. The claim of the petitioner that he purchased the disputed property in the year 1965 for Rs,8,000 and paid Rs,2,000 as an earnest money does not get support from the evidence brought on record.
Throughout all this period he never filed any suit for specific performance basing his claim on the alleged oral agreement. Furthermore, he has taken contradictory pleas; in one breath he has claimed the disputed property being owner of the same and on the other hand he has taken up the plea of adverse possession, both of which are contradictory in nature. The learned Courts below after evaluating the entire evidence brought on record have determined all these questions of fact which have been maintained by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court while dismissing the civil revision filed by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or legal infirmity in the impugned judgment warranting interference by this Court.
' Resultantly, for what has been stated above, the instant petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed and .