' SH. AZMAT SAEED, J.---Through this judgment it is proposed to decide Civil Revision No,914-D of 2006 and Civil Revision No,915-D of 2006.
2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the lis at hand are that the respondents filed a suit for possession against the present petitioners in respect of the property in dispute claiming that the same had been transferred to them by the Settlement Department pursuant whereto a mutation stands attested in their favour. The said suit was resisted by the present petitioners who inter alia contended that the order of transfer was illegal and based upon fraud. Various other legal and factual objections were taken. Subsequently, the present, petitioners in the two civil revisions i.e. The Province of Punjab and the District Food Controller filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction challenging the transfer of the property dispute to the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents on the ground of fraud and illegality. The said suit was resisted by the present respondents. The two suits were consolidated whereafter consolidated issues were framed and the parties led their respective oral and documentary evidence.
'Subsequently, vide a consolidated 'judgment and decree dated 11-7-2005 the trial Court seized of the matter dismissed both the suits. The trial Court held the transfer in favour of the respondents as valid and hence dismissed the suit filed by the present petitioners. However, held the suit filed by the respondents as barred by limitation and dismissed the same. Both the petitioners and the respondents challenged the consolidated judgment and decree dated 11-7-2005 through separate appeals which were heard by the learned District Judge, Sahiwal who vide its appellate judgment and decree dated 12-7-2006 dismissed the appeal filed by the present petitioners, holding the transfer in favour of the respondents as valid. Further held that the petitioners were tenants under the respondents who were entitled to seek the eviction thereof by invoking the provisions of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The aforesaid consolidated appellate judgment and decree dated 12-7-2006 has been challenged by the petitioners through the abovementioned two separate civil revisions proposed to be decided through this judgment.
3. The property in dispute was admittedly an evacuee property and the question of its allotment and transfer has been subject-matter of several rounds of litigation. In order to identify the matter in issue between the parties it would be necessary to trace the history of such litigation. The facts in this behalf as can be gleaned from the record appear to be that the property in dispute is situated in Civil Lines, Sahiwal consisting of a Bungalow along with an annexe. The annexe was referred to as Unit No.29, which has been transferred to a Dr. A.R. Rohilla and is not subject-matter of this dispute.
The main Bungalow part whereof is referred to as Unit No.28 and the remaining portion referred to as Unit No.30. A part of Unit. No.28 was in possession of one Sardar Abdul Aleem and the Chief Cotton Inspector while Unit Nb.30 was apparently occupied by one Ch. Abdul Raheem and the remaining portion was in the occupation of the District Food Controller i.e. One of the present petitioners. On the 29th of February, 1960 the part of Unit No.28 in possession of Ch. Abdul Raheem was transferred to him and the part of Unit No.30 in possession of Sardar Abdul Aleem was transferred to the said gentleman. While the portion in possession of Chief Cotton Inspector forming part of Unit No.28 and the portion of Unit No.30 in the possession of the District Food Controller were reserved for separate disposal.
4. Consequently, the portion of Unit No.28 in possession of the Chief Cotton Inspector was drawn in favour of Sh. Taj Din the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents while the portion in possession of Sardar. Abdul Aleem was transferred to him. The part Unit No.30 in possession of District Food Controller was allotted to one Zaman vide order dated 4-5-1961 but was never transferred.
5. Sardar Abdul Aleem challenged the said order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner through a Constitutional Petition before this Court which was accepted vide judgment dated 24-2-1964 whereby the whole of Unit No.28 was transferred to Sardar Abdul Aleem and front portion of Unit No.30 in the possession of District Food Controller was transferred to Sh. Taj Din the predecessorin- interest of the present respondents and the back portion of the said Unit No.28 was given to Ch. Abdul Raheem. The said order of this Court was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, which remanded the case to the Settlement Commissioner directing him to pass a fresh order for the disposal of Units Nos.28 and 30. In post remand proceedings the Chief Settlement Commissioner vide its order dated 14-5-1973 allotted the portion in possession of the District Food Controller forming part of being Unit No.30 to Sh. Taj-ud-Din. Ch. Abdul Raheem who was allotted a portion of Unit No.30 challenged the said order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner dated 14-5- 1973 through a constitutional petition before this Court which was dismissed vide order dated. 20- 12-1976. Aggrieved the said Ch. Abdul Raheem filed an Intra Court Appeal which also failed to fined favour and was dismissed as being not maintainable vide order dated 23-1-1978. Still dissatisfied of the same Ch. Abdul Raheem invoking the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan vide CPSLA No.98 of 1978 which was dismissed by the apex Court vide its judgment dated 12-3-1978. It is after the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan that the parties separately filed their respective suits before the civil Court, which had culminated in the present lis. And it is in the above perspective that the contentions of the respective counsel must necessarily be examined.
6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the transfer of the property in dispute in portion Unit No.30 in occupation of the District Food Controller in favour of the predecessor-ininterest of the respondents was illegal and the civil Court had the jurisdiction to examine the same. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has controverted the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners. It is further contended that the petitioners never applied for transfer of the property and admittedly were never transferred the said property by the Settlement Authorities., Adds that the transfer of the property in dispute in favour' of the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents have been held to be valid right up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. It is further contended that the petitioners had full knowledge of the said transfer accepted the same and treated the respondents as their landlords. In this behalf the learned counsel has referred to Exh.P.29, Exh.P.30 and Exh.P.31. On the basis of the aforesaid document the learned counsel has also urged that the suit filed by the petitioners was barred by limitation as has been held by the First Appellate Court.
7. There can be no escape from the fact that the property in dispute was transferred to the predecessor-in-interest of the present respondents by the Chief Settlement Commissioner vide order dated 8-5-1973. The said order was passed pursuant to a remand order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. The validity of said order of transfer was examined by this Court in its constitutional petition filed to challenge the same and held to be valid. The matter eventually came up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan which vide its judgment dated 12-3-1978 besides holding the Intra-Court Appeal filed by one Ch. Abdul Raheem to be not maintainable also inter alia examined the validity of the transfer in favour of the predecessor-in- interest of the respondents. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan held on merits that the said transfer was valid.
Nothing has been stated at the bar by the learned counsel for the petitioners to persuade this Court to hold otherwise. Furthermore it is also evident from the record that the petitioners never applied for transfer of the said property and not only had knowledge of the transfer thereof in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents but also acknowledged the same as their landlords. Even otherwise by operation of law pursuant to a transfer of the property the petitioners became the tenants of the respondents. The impugned judgments and decrees are based on cogent evidence and correct appreciation of law. And facts. There is no material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction by the first Appellate Court warranting interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction.
8. The upshot of the above discussion is that these petitions are without any merit and must fail.
Consequently, both these revision petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs.