' FARRUKH LATIF, J.---On 22-12-1993, the petitioner filed a suit for declaration that he is owner of two shops in village Tataypur. Precisely, his case was that the same was evacuee property, since after partition of sub-continent it was in possession of his father who had become owner thereof under Settlement Scheme No.VII and after the death of his father he is in possession of the said shops as the owner. It was further alleged that about three years prior to the institution of the suit, the respondent factory claimed ownership of the said property; said dispute was resolved through a compromise where under the respondent agreed to sell the shops to the petitioner in consideration of Rs.15,000 and after receiving the said consideration in advance, promised to execute a registered conveyance deed regarding the shops in favour of the petitioner, but it failed to perform his part of the obligation under the sale agreement and is prolonging the matter on one pretext or the other with the intention of extracting further money from the petitioner.
2. It was further pleaded that the petitioner had become owner of the shops in question on account of adverse possession. It was finally alleged that if he failed to prove his title, in that case he is entitled to retain possession of the disputed shops as a tenant of the respondent factory.
' After raising contradictory pleas of title, possession under sale agreement, adverse possession and in the alternate possession as a tenant, ultimate prayer in the suit was that petitioner be declared as an exclusive owner of the shops with further declaration that respondent factory has no concern whatsoever with the said property and it be perpetually restrained from interfering with the ownership and possession of the petitioner regarding the said shops.
3. The suit was contested by the respondents on the grounds that land beneath the shops forms part of the property transferred to the respondent factory, the shops in question along with similar other shops were constructed by the factory and the petitioner is in possession of the shops in question as a tenant of the respondent factory and is a rent defaulter since about last ten months.
' Subsequently, on 22-8-1994, the respondent factory filed a suit for ejectment of the petitioner from the said shops alleging that the same were obtained on rent by the petitioner at the rate of Rs.250 per month and he has not paid rent since June, 1993. His ejectment was sought on the grounds of default in payment of rent and denial of tenancy.
5. The suit was contested by the petitioner who denied tenancy and claimed ownership under Settlement Scheme No. VII.
6. Both the suits were consolidated by the trial Court and after framing consolidated issues and recording evidence, petitioner's suit for declaration was dismissed while that of respondent factory was decreed vide consolidated judgment dated 15-11-1999.
7. Appeal filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid consolidated judgment and the decrees was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Multan on 26-1-2001.
8. The aforesaid concurrent judgments/decrees are assailed by the petitioner through this civil revision.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that:--
(i) Evidence was over-looked, misread and misappreciated.
(ii) Finding of Courts below regarding existence of tenancy is not based on evidence.
(iii) Both the Courts below failed to appreciate that under Settlement Scheme No. VII, property automatically stood transferred to the occupant and no allotment order was required to be made.
(iv) PTD was not produced in evidence by the respondent to prove ownership, hence, adverse inference should have been drawn against the respondent factory.
(v) During the trial, an application was moved by the petitioner for impleaidng Settlement Department as a party in the suit, it was illegally dismissed by the trial Court, said order of trial Court was also assailed in the appeal but it was not adverted and considered by the Appellate Court.
(vi) The petitioner had acknowledged the respondent as owner of the shops and had agreed to purchase the same from him under misrepresentation made by the respondent that it was owner, but it later on transpired that respondent was not owner hence said acknowledgement which was made on account of misrepresentation could not be deemed as admission by the petitioner regarding ownership of the respondent factory.
(vii) Findings of the Courts below are against law and facts and
(viii) Judgment of the Appellate Court is in violation of Order XX, rule 5, C.P.C. As separate findings on the issues are not given.
10. Civil revision is strongly opposed by learned counsel for the respondents.
11. Arguments heard. Revision petition and its annexures perused.
12. In support of his case, the petitioner-Ghulam Hussain appeared in the witness box as P.W.5 and stated that his father had migrated from Tehsil Batala (India) in 1947 and had occupied a residential quarter; about two years thereafter he had converted the said quarter into two shops and had become owner of the said property under Settlement Scheme No.VII. He had died in 1974 whereafter the petitioner is in possession of the said shops as owner.
' Testimony of the petitioner regarding occupation and possession of the shops in question by his father since 1947 was contradicted and belied by his own witness P.W.3, Muhammad Shafi Kanoongo and documents produced by him viz. Mutation Exh.P.10, Jamanbandies Exh.P.11 to Exh.P.15 and Khasra Girdavries Exh.P.6 to Exh. P.8.
13. P.W.3, Muhammad Shafi Kanoongo stated that name of the petitioner or that of his father Ali Ahmad does not figure anywhere in the Jamanbandies since 1963-64 till date and that according to the Jamanbandi for the period 1963-64, Mahmood Cotton Ginning Factory and Pressing Oils Mill, Tatapur (respondent) is recorded as the owner and in possession of the disputed place. According to Exh.P.10 which is Mutation No.575, dated 23-6-1962 entire Khata of the land over which shops are constructed, was mutated in favour of the respondent factory. Jamanbandies Exhs.P.11 to P.15 from 1963-64 to 1988-89 reflect that respondent factory is owner and in possession of land measuring 45-Kanals and 6 Marlas, comprised in Khasra No.143 which is described as {{URDU TEXT}} Entries in Khasra Gardavries Exhs.P.6 to P.8 for the period Kharif 1993 to Rabi 1997 also depict that respondent factory is the owner of the said land in which two shops measuring 2-Marlas each are shown in occupation of the petitioner since Kharif 1993.
Stance of the petitioner that his father was in possession of the said shops since 1947 was, therefore, contradicted and belied by the aforesaid evidence produced and relied upon by the petitioner himself. As the petitioner could not prove possession of his father or even his possession prior to 1993, the question of allotment of the said shops to his father under Settlement Scheme No.VII did not arise. Besides nothing was produced on record to show that name of his father was entered in the Survey Register showing his possession over the shops in question since before 1961 and that his father had applied to the Settlement Department for allotment under Scheme No.VII.
Petitioner had stated while appearing as P.W.5 that respondent had got allotment of the property (which included disputed shops) through fraud and that mutation and PTD in favour of the respondent factory are fake. His aforesaid allegations were not worth any notice for the reason that in his declaratory suit, he had neither challenged PTD nor the mutation and longstanding entries in the revenue record in favour of the respondent factory; besides that nothing was produced on record in support of the aforesaid bald assertion. Issuance of PTD and mutation in favour of respondent factory was admitted by the petitioner during his statement.
14. From the testimonies of D.W.1, Ameer Ahmad Shah, Manager of the respondent factory, D.W.2, Sardar Ali, D.W.3, Kh. Muhammad Iqbal one of the respondents and D.W.4, Muhammad Ramzan, it was amply proved that the shops in question along with eight other shops were constructed by the respondent factory; all the said shops were constructed at the same time, they had a common lintel/roof; that previously there was no residential quarter at the place where the shops in question are constructed and that petitioner was inducted as a tenant in the shops in question by the respondent factory.
15. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any material piece of evidence which was overlooked or misread by the Courts blow. He also failed to show as to how evidence was misappreciated. It was urged by him that there is lot of cutting and overwriting in Exhs.P.3 and P.4 (Field Books), hence said entries are doubtful. P.W.2, Muhammad Ayyub Patwari who was petitioner's witness had stated that the aforesaid documents were correct copies ofl the original record brought by him and the cuttings and overwritings were signed by D competent Officer, hence, they were not doubtful.
16. Finding of the Courts below regarding tenancy is based on evidence as stated herein before. For the foregoing reasons, contentions Nos.1 to 3 of the petitioner's counsel are repelled.
17. Referring to 4th contention of the petitioner's counsel it may be observed that according to section 113 of the Qanun-eShahadat Order, 1984 facts admitted need not be proved. The petitioner while appearing as witness had admitted issuance of PTD in favour of respondent factory.
Ownership of the respondent factory was also impliedly admitted by the petitioner by raising additional pleas, contained in his suit regarding adverse possession, his agreement with the respondent to purchase the shops in question and payment of sale consideration under the sale agreement. It is pertinent to note that the aforesaid pleas were not alternate pleas but additional pleas. Adverse possession was not proved on record and a decree on that ground could not be granted as claim of ownership through preScription has been declared against injunctions of Islam. Regarding the latter plea also there was virtually no evidence on record nor it was a suit for specific performance of the agreement.
18. Referring to contention No.5, order whereby trial Court had allegedly dismissed petitioner's application for impleading Settlement Department was not assailed in the appeal as is evident from the grounds of appeal, hence, contention that said order of the trial Court was assailed before the Appellate Court and it was not considered by it, is without any substance.
19. Contention No.6 is not only misconceived but is also an afterthought as it was not alleged in the plaint that the petitioner had agreed to purchase the shops under misrepresentation made by the respondent and it had later on transpired to the petitioner that respondent was not the owner.
20. Adverting to 7th contention, it may be observed that revisional jurisdiction is directed against irregular exercise, non-exercise or illegal assumption of jurisdiction and not against conclusions of fact or law, not involving question of jurisdiction. In this case findings of Courts below are based on evidence and are supported by plausible reasoning. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out breach of any provision of law or the commission of any error of procedure by the Courts below. The impugned orders do not suffer from any jurisdictional infirmity.
21. Reverting to the final contention it may be observed that judgment of the Appellate Court deals with all the points raised in the appeal, hence, it fulfils requirements of Order XX, rule 5, C.P.C. Even if issues are not separately discussed.
22. Prior to the filing of ejectment suit by the respondents, the petitioner had already filed a declaratory suit claiming title in the shops in question. In the suit for ejectment also, the petitioner had raised same defence that he is in possession of the shops as owner and had denied the respondent's title as well as the tenancy. By the aforesaid denial not only the default in payment of rent was established but it also resulted in forfeiture of his tenancy under section 111 (g) of Transfer of Property Act. Petitioner's suit for declaration was therefore, rightly dismissed while no illegality or irregularity was committed by the Courts below in decreeing the suit for ejectment filed by the respondent. Concurrent judgments/decrees of the Courts below are, therefore, not open to interference by way of revision. Civil revision is accordingly dismissed with costs.