' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---On 19-9-1984 the respondents filed a suit against the petitioner. In the plaint, it was stated that the suit shop, mentioned in the plaint, was transferred to Jewan Khan, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents as a result of auction conducted by the Central Government. The petitioner is occupying the shop as a tenant. He is not paying the rent. It was also stated that the shop is required for personal use and occupation. A notice was issued on 14-3-1983 but the shop has not been vacated. The rent was claimed at the rate of Rs,100 per month. A decree for possession by ejectment was accordingly sought. In the written statement, the petitioner objected that a notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, has not been served.
Then, it was urged that he is in possession since before the year 1958 and is entitled to a notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. On merits, it was stated that he is in possession since 1947 and after the transfer of the shop, he has become a tenant. According to him, in the absence of a notice, there is no question of payment of rent. It may be noted that this written statement was filed on 5-11-1985. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 8- 4-1991. Learned District Judge, D.G. Khan, dismissed the first appeal of the petitioner on 26-4-1992 .
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the shop was located in an urban area and a civil Court has no jurisdiction. Further contention is that a notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, had not been served and the suit could not have been filed without complying with the terms of the said provisions of law. Also contends that evidence on record has been misread. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, supports the impugned judgment and decree.
3. I have gone through the copies of the records. I have already noted above the contents of the pleadings of the parties. Now the shop is stated to be located in Abadi of Wahova. It is further stated in the body of the plaint in para.6 that the shop is located in a rural area. There is no plea in the written statement at all that the shop is located in an urban area or that the Court has no jurisdiction on the said ground. Although learned counsel has vehemently urged that this is a question of law and can be raised at any time yet I find that no foundation has been laid for deiermining the said question of law either in the plaint or in the course of evidence. Needless to state that apart from the absence of plea the petitioner did not at all state that the shop is located in an urban area in the course of his statement as D.W.3. The said contention, therefore, is without any force. So far as the question of service of notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, :1882 is concerned, the learned Courts below have very rightly relied upon the case of Muhammad Siddique v. Barkat Ali (PLD 1981 Lahore 615) holding that landlord cannot be non-suited for non-service of said notice. The view has further been affirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Barkat Ullah Khan v. Abdul Hamid (1981 SCM R 1200). Nothing, therefore, turns on the said plea. No misreading of the evidence on record has been pointed out.
There is no denial of the title of the respondents and the fact that the petitioner is occupying the shop as a tenant. The civil revision is wholly frivolous and is dismissed with costs throughout.