' ALI AKBAR QURESHI, J.---This second appeal calls in question the validity of, orders dated 10-5- 2008 and 26-7-2006 passed by the learned Courts below respectively whereby the ejectment petition of the respondents was accepted against the appellants.
2. The chequered history of the case is that the respondents instituted an ejectment petition against one Haji Muhammad Ramzan, deceased predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants pertaining to shop with godown and courtyard situated in Alipur Chatha, Tehsil Wazirabad, District Gujranwala on the ground that the said property was rented out to the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants for a monthly rent of Rs,50 which was paid till 1997 but thereafter the payment of monthly rent was stopped since January, 1978 and the property in question is required for personal use and occupation of the respondents, therefore, the appellants/tenants be directed to hand over the vacant possession of the property. The ejectment petition was contested by the respondents, who while filing the written reply denied the relationship of tenancy between the parties. The learned Rent Controller, out of the pleadings of the parties, framed the issues regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant. Both the parties adduced their respective evidence and when the case was fixed for final arguments, both the parties recorded their statement. The predecessor-in-interest of the appellants stated in the Court that he is possessing the property situated in Khasra No,3650/1741 and if a local Commissioner is appointed to verify the fact on the spot, he will abide by the report of the Local Commissioner and also the decision of the case in the light of the said report. He also undertook to vacate the property in question in case the Local Commissioner reports that the predecessorin-interest of the appellants is not in possession of the Khasra No,3650/1741. The predecessor-in-interest of the instant respondents also recorded his statement in the similar lines.
3. In view of the statements of both the parties, the learned Rent Controller appointed Naib Tehsildar, Wazirabad as Local Commissioner; on the report of the Local Commissioner, the ejectment petition was accepted by the learned Rent Controller on 9-12-1987; in appeal, the case was remanded on 12-1-1989 with a direction to appoint fresh local Commissioner; the learned Rent Controller obtained the fresh report of the local Commissioner as directed by the appellate Court and again allowed the ejectment petition on 31-1-1991; the appeal against the said order was dismissed on 10-6-1991; a Constitutional Petition bearing No,6052/1991 was preferred which was accepted on 13-10-1997 and the orders of the learned Rent Controller and the appellate Court were set aside; the matter was remanded to the learned trial Court to decide afresh; the Tehsildar Wazirabad was appointed as local Commissioner who submitted the report on 10-12-1992; on, the report of Tehsildar, the ejectment petition was again allowed; in appeal, the matter was again remanded to the learned trial Court on 3-10-1996; the learned trial Court appointed another local Commissioner who submitted the report; the learned Rent Controller in view of the report of the local Commissioner, dismissed the ejectment petition on 26-4-2000; the appeal thereof was accepted on 26-4-2002 and the case was remanded for obtaining fresh report. Of the local Commissioner; Tehsildar Wazirabad was again appointed local Commissioner for demarcation of the property under Khasra Nos. 3649/1741 and 3650/1741; the Tehsildar submitted the report on 26- 3-2004; the appellant objected the report by filing the objection petition which was controverted by the respondents; the objection petition was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller and finally allowed the ejectment petition on 26-7-2006; the appellants being aggrieved with the acceptance of the ejectment petition, preferred an appeal but the same was too dismissed, hence this second appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that both the learned Courts below had no jurisdiction to appoint the local Commissioner for demarcation of the aforesaid Khasra numbers.
Also contended that the learned Courts below should have decided the case on merits instead of relying upon the report of the Local Commissioners particularly in the circumstances that the appellants have specifically denied the relationship of landlord and tenant at the time of filing the written statement. Next contended that even otherwise the learned Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to, decide the question of title which is the sole prerogative of the civil Court, therefore, the orders passed by the learned Courts below are liable to be set at naught. Lastly contended that although both the learned Courts below had no jurisdiction to appoint any local Commissioner to demarcate the site in dispute but the local Commissioner had not followed the procedure to demarcate the Khasra number as provided in the law, therefore, all the proceedings conducted by the local Commissioner was liable to be set aside. Lastly contended that all the proceedings or demarcation was conducted by the local Commissioner in the absence of the appellant as no notice was served. Learned counsel relied upon Aadil Nadeem Rizvi v. Gohar Siddique and others (2004 SCM R 738), Inshallah. Khan and 10 others v. Sir Boland Khan and 3 others (2004 CLC 1689), Allah Yar v. General Manager, Railways Headquarters, Lahore and another (2001 SCM R 256), Muhammad Akbar Yousufzi v. Muhammad Sabir and 3 others (2005 YLR 1383), Muhammad Rafiq and others v. Muhammad Ali and others (2004 SCM R 704), Mst. Murad Begum etc. v. Muhammad Rafiq etc. (PLD 1974 SC 322), Muhammad Ameen v. Sardar Ali (PLD 2006 SC 318), Muhammad Sajjad Hussain v. Muhammad Anwar Hussain (1991 SCM R 703), Rehmatullah v. Ali Muhammad and another (1983 SCM R 1064) and Junaid Rasheed and others v. Sultan Muhammad and others (2000 SCM R 1525).
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
6. The chequered history already mentioned in para-2 ante need not to be discussed. The predecessor-in-interest of both the parties recorded their statement before the learned trial Court to appoint the local Commissioner for demarcation of the site to resolve the controversy between the parties. The learned local Rent Controller exercised the jurisdiction and appointed the local Commissioner on the consenting statement of the predecessor-in-interest of the parties. It is also pertinent to mention here that the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant firstly recorded his statement that the local Commissioner be appointed to ascertain the possession of the predecessorin-interest over the Khasra Nos.3649/1741 and 3650/1741. The exercise to demarcate the property in question or the aforesaid Khasra numbers was carried out many times and finally the learned trial Court in the light of the report, made by the local Commissioner finally accepted the ejectment petition. The appellants in the litigation as referred above, did not object upon the appointment of the local Commissioner, therefore, at this stage, has no legal justification to question the appointment of the local Commissioner or its reports particularly in the circumstances when the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant himself offered in the open Court and recorded his statement to this effect. It is also pointed out here that in the earlier round of litigation, the matter came up to this Court and while disposing of the Writ Petition No,6052 of 1991, the direction was given to the learned trial Court to act in terms of the orders passed by the learned appellate Court to appoint the local Commissioner. All these facts are sufficient to constitute and establish, that the appellants are not entitled to question the appointment of the local Commissioner and because of the statement of their predecessor-in-interest are bound to accept the report of the local Commissioner and on the basis of the decision given by the learned Rent Controller. The learned counsel for the appellants instead of pointing out any jurisdictional defect, legal infirmity, material irregularity, misreading and non-reading of record particularly in presence of the statement given by the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, tried to question the jurisdiction of the learned Rent Controller to appoint the local Commissioner. When the learned counsel for the appellants was confronted to the admitted facts of the record, that the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants himself submitted the jurisdiction before the learned Rent Controller and suggested that A to resolve the controversy, a local Commissioner be appointed for demarcation of the aforesaid Khasra number, the learned counsel had no answer and could not offer any plausible explanation to this aspect of the case.
7. Both the learned Courts below keeping in view the history of the case carefully appreciated the record of the case and finally reached to the conclusion, that the respondents are entitled to the relief as prayed in the ejectment petition and finally allowed the ejectment petition. The law referred by the learned counsel for the appellants has no nexus with the facts of the present case and are distinguished.
8. In presence of the concurrent. Conclusion rendered by the learned Courts below, there is no chance at all to interfere therewith in second appeal, therefore, this appeal has no force and is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.