' SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, J.---Respondent No,1 is a Society registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860. Society owns and possess property situated in Kachi Abadi, Kot Amir Ali Shah. Respondent No,1 instituted suit for cancellation of Sale-deed No,2934 dated 13-9-1986. The case of the plaintiff as set out in the plaint is that the petitioner is tenant under respondent No,1 in two quarters on monthly rent of Rs,55; that the respondent has been paying rent regularly up to October, 1985; that the payment of rent was stopped on the claim that the petitioner being in occupation of quarters, which are part of Kachi Abadi and the petitioner is entitled to its ownership; that quarters being part of mosque are not available for transfer under Kachi Abadi Scheme; that earlier the petitioner and some other occupants stopped payment of rent on the basis of claim of occupation of Kachi Abadi Scheme, which resulted into filing of ejectment petitions and occupant made a statement and undertook to pay rent to the Mosque; that a report was prepared on the direction of District Collector and in pursuance thereof, Assistant Commissioner, Okara reported that quarters are not available for transfer being part of Kachi Abadi as occupants are tenants under the Mosque and in spite of direction of District Collector, the land was transferred to the petitioners under impugned sale-deed. The petitioner contested the suit, filed written statement wherein the averments made in the plaint were controverted and various preliminary objections were raised. The relationship of landlord and tenant was denied. The objections as to institution of suit through incompetent person, suit being insufficiently stamped, suit being barred by estoppel and barred under Order II, rule 2, C.P.C., were raised. Learned trial Court out of divergent pleadings of the parties, framed as many as 10 (ten) issues.
2. Learned trial Court, after recording evidence and hearing the parties, dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 18-9-1996. Respondent No,1 assailed the decision dated 18-9-1996 in appeal before learned Additional District Judge who vide judgment and decree dated 30-11-2000 accepted the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and decree and decreed the suit as prayed for. The judgment and decree dated 30-11-2000 passed by learned appellate Court, has been called in question through the instant appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that suit-land falls in Kachi Abadi, whereupon the petition has raised construction from his own funds and landlord-tenant relationship never existed between the petitioner and respondent No, I. The petitioner referred to Jamabandi for the year, 1989-90, wherein Khasra No,4469, is shown as Provincial Government land while nature of land has been mentioned "Ghair Mumkin Qabristan" (graveyard). Learned counsel then referred to Exh.D.7, i.e, statement of Rehmat Ali who admitted that Kot Amir Ali Shah is included in Kachi Abadi.
To prove a valid sale in favour of the petitioner Exh.D.5 (Demand Note) and Exh.D.6 (Deposit Receipt) were referred. Learned counsel then argued that as per Exh.D.3 Kot Amir Ali Shah has been declared Kachi Abadi and whosoever was in possession, was given proprietary rights, for residential purpose. Learned counsel further submitted that respondent No,1 filed an application under Order XLI, rule 27, C.P.C., which was allowed through order dated 1-11-2000 whereby respondent No,1 was allowed to make up deficiency. Additional evidence, at appellate stage, cannot be allowed, to fill in gaps and lacuna. Learned counsel in support of this contention has referred to the case of "Muhammad Qasim and 6 others v. Muhammad Hussain and 8 others" (PLD 2001 Lahore 9). He added that additional evidence within the contemplation of rule 27 ibid is not entitlement of a party, it can only be allowed if trial Court has refused to admit evidence or additional evidence was required to enable the Court to pronounce judgment and reasons are required to be recorded. Additional evidence was allowed and essential requirements of rule 27, C.P.C. Were ignored. Learned counsel while referring to the case of "Hashim Khan v. National Bank of Pakistan, Head Office at I.I. Chundrigar Road, Karachi and Branch Office at M.A. Jinnah Road, Quetta" (PLD 2001 SC 325) contended that respondent No,1, has omitted to claim the relief in earlier suit and is now precluded to agitate the same in the instant suit.
4. Learned counsel for respondents on the other hand, stood-behind the impugned decree and supported the judgments. He reiterated his arguments which he addressed before the appellate Court. Learned counsel has submitted that additional evidence was rightly allowed and non-filing of documents with the plaint, are not fatal and in support of his contention has referred to the case of "Anwar Ahmad v. Mst. Nafees Bano through legal heirs" (2005 SCMR 152) learned counsel has relied upon the case of "Allah Dad and 3 others v. Dhuman Khan and 10 others" (2005 SCMR 564) to contend that a document which is tendered in evidence, it cannot be subsequently excluded from consideration. Learned counsel while submitting to the scope of revision has submitted that the appellate Court can competently reverse the findings on question of fact in issue, but such powers do not vest with revisional Court. It was also contended that in case of judgment at variance, the judgment of appellate Court has preference until it is found that judgment of appellate Court is tainted with illegality or irregularity or suffers from the default of misreading and non-reading of evidence. Case of "Abdur Rashid and 3 others v. Sajjad Amjad alias Sajjad Ahmad and another"
(2004 MLD 1879) was referred to support this contention.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on the record.
6. Leaned trial Court has decided Issues Nos.l, 3, 4, 6 and 8 against the petitioner. Petitioner has neither challenged the issues decided against him, in appeal, nor cross-objections were filed. The issues have since attained finality and do not required any consideration at this revisional stage.
7. Suit-land which is in the shape of quarters, is situated adjacent to Mosque, where various other quarters are in occupation of different persons. The petitioner in the ejectment proceedings recorded his statement (Exh.P.1) on 18-2-1982. He admitted the tenancy under Masjid-e-Ghausia.
He has also admitted that in case of default in payment of rent for two months, Masjid-e-Ghausia be vested with the right to dispossess/eject the petitioner, according to law. Once the relationship of landlord and tenant is admitted, it cannot be denied subsequently. There is a settled law that once a tenant is always a tenant. The petitioner is and shall remain tenant under the respondent.
8. Learned appellate Court while dealing with the question of competency of the Municipal Committee to alienate the suit-land through impugned sale-deed, has examined Exh.P.2 (Register Haqdaran Zamin for the years 1989-1990) and rightly found that the property is a graveyard which stood transferred to the Mosque. The Management of the Mosque has raised construction of quarters, whereupon the document, clearly reflects that property is and Municipal Committee has no right or authority to alienate such land. Municipal Committee can validly sell the land of Kachi Abadi to its occupants. Municipal Committee has proceeded to grant proprietary rights to the occupant of Kachi Abadi on the basis of Letter No,1127-84-111/3267-CS, conveyed through S.0.-II-LG- I-86/83, dated 4-121984 (Exh.D.3). Perusal of the same reveals that entitlement of proprietary rights can only be extended to occupants who are dwellers in Kachi Abadi. The petitioner is not occupant in his own right but occupies premises under respondent No,1 as it's tenant. The petitioner is entitled to the transfer of quarter under the scheme. Additionally, the disputed quarter are not forming part of Kachi Abadi but of Mosque which, as per Revenue Record is land for graveyard. The impugned sale-deed has been executed by Municipal Committee illegally and agreement of sale (impugned sale-deed) is void agreement in terms of sections 10 and 23 of the Contract Act, 1872.
9. The arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner regarding grant of additional evidence at appellate stage, has no force as the learned Court has allowed the additional evidence by following the dictum of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Muhammad Qasim and 6 others (supra).
10. Learned appellate Court has passed the impugned decree in accordance with law. No infirmity or illegality is found in the impugned judgment and decree. The case of misreading, non-reading of evidence and wrong assumption of law, has not been made to justify interference in revisional jurisdiction.
11. For the foregoing, this petition has no force and is dismissed with no order as to costs.