MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, J.--- Claiming the respondents to be his tenants at the rate of Rs.625 per month for the suit shop, the petitioner filed a suit for the recovery of Rs.18,000 as the outstanding rent. The respondents contested the suit. Nine issues were framed by learned trial Judge. Evidence was recorded. The learned trial Judge, Kamalia thereupon through judgment and decree, dated 5- 1-2001 decreed petitioner's suit. On respondents' appeal, the learned Additional District Judge, Kamalia through judgment and decree dated 24-7-2001 set aside the above said judgment and decree of the learned trial Judge and dismissed the suit of the petitioner. Hence the present civil revision.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner read out the pleading as raised by the petitioner in the plaint and contended that the pleadings of the petitioner were his arguments in support of the present civil revision.
The learned counsel for the respondents contrarily supported the impugned judgment and decree.
3. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court does not find any merit in the present civil revision. The undisputed and undenied fact is that the parties entered into litigation before the learned Rent Tribunals for the same shop for which the petitioner presently claimed rent on the purported creation of new tenancy after the decision against him by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan. Uptil the Supreme Court of Pakistan, it was held that the parties had no relationship of the landlord and the tenant as they were the shareholders in the suit shop. The petitioner on the purported plea of fresh tenancy claimed Rs.18,000 as the rent. The learned Additional District Judge as the first appellate Court held that in view of the prolonged litigation between the parties, it was not credible that the oral agreement of tenancy was entered into between the parties. And that in the absence of a written agreement, the pleas of the petitioner could not be accepted. Also that the parties being the shareholders in the shop, the petitioner could claim the recovery of compensation for the use of his share of the property by the respondents but could not claim existence of relationship of the landlord and the tenant in terms of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance.
4. The petitioner and his learned counsel were unable to show any excess of authority, material irregularity, misreading or non-reading of evidence by the learned first appellate Court.
Furthermore, no infirmity in the findings of the learned Additional District Judge was pointed out.
Under these circumstances, this civil revision being meritless is dismissed with costs.