' MUHAMMAD KHALID ALVI, J.---With the concurrence of learned counsel for the parties this case is being treated as a "Pacca Case".
2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioners filed an ejectment petition on 19-2-2004 against the respondents with regard to a house situated in Khewat No,257, Khatooni No,487 share 218/ 235728 measuring 12 Marlas I Sirsahi according to Jama Bandi of the year, 2001 situated in Chak No,439/EB on an oral tenancy for a sum of Rs,1000 per month since December, 2001. Ejectment was sought on various grounds including default, personal need, damage to the property etc. Respondents filed their written reply and denied existence of relationship of landlord and tenant. Both the parties led their respective evidence and the learned Rent Controller vide order dated 26-11-2005 allowed the application and directed ejectment of the respondents. Respondents preferred appeal, which was allowed on 16-1-2007 and the ejectment petition was dismissed. This order is being assailed through the instant constitutional petition.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned appellate Court has taken into account some alien consideration as to the dispute between the fathers of the parties with regard to a shop, which was got vacated by the petitioners' father from respondents' father in the year, 1990, therefore, it was a presumption that further relationship of landlord and tenant cannot be established in the next generation. It is further submitted that according to Exh.A/2 Jamabandi for the year, 2000-2001 petitioners are recorded as owners of the property in dispute which is also reflected from Exh.A/3, which is P.T.1 Register. It is further argued that since the tenancy was oral, therefore, no documentary evidence was produced. Oral evidence led by the petitioners is sufficient to establish the fact of oral tenancy between the parties.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contends that according to Exh.A/3 read with Exh.A/1 which is the self prepared site-plan by the petitioners, the description of the property does not tally with each other.
5. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
6. During the course of arguments I had put a query to the learned counsel for the petitioners as to how the property/house can be identified which is being sought to be ejected. According to the Para. 1 of the plaint only share of a large undivided joint Khata measuring 654 Kanals 16 Marlas, an area of 12 Marlas 1 Sirsahi is being owned by the petitioners which is also reflected in the Jamabandi but Exh.A/1 while the site-plan prepared by the petitioners himself does not indicate as to what is situated on the four sides of the house in dispute; on the northern side with some distance Multan Road is shown. It is also not shown that what is situated between Multan Road and the house in dispute. In this view of the matter; the property being sought to be evicted by the petitioners from the respondents is not identifiable. According to Exh.A/1 there are only two rooms in the house whereas Column No,9 of Exh.A/3 shows that there are three rooms; one B kitchen and one bath. This description also does not tally with each other. Petitioners may be co-sharers in a big joint undivided Khata but certainly they have failed to identify the property being sought to be ejected by giving exact detail of its location, therefore, finding no merit in this petition, the same is accordingly dismissed.
7. Before parting with the judgment, it may be observed that any observation made by the learned Rent Controller, the learned Appellate Authority and even by this Court with regard to the title of the property will have no bearing on any proceeding that may be initiated by the parties to established their title.