1. MUHAMMAD AKRAM, J.-The ejectment petition filed by Abdur Rasheed respondent against Abdul Hameed petitioner was dismissed by the Rent Controller. But the order was reversed on appeal accepted by the District Judge and affirmed in second appeal dismissed by learned Judge of the Lahore High Court at Lahore on the 23rd of January 1979. This is a petition for special leave from the order.
2. Briefly, the relevant facts are that the respondent's application for the ejectment of the petitioner was resisted by him and he, inter alia, denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. From the evidence the learned Rent Controller, Lyallpur held that the respondent herein was proved to be the owner of the disputed premises but that he failed to establish that the petitioner was a tenant under him. His evidence on the point was not satisfactory and consequently his ejectment petition was dismissed. But on appeal the learned District Judge was of the opinion that the statement of the present petitioner on the point did not in spire confidence.
3. He did not adduce any evidence to show that he had raised the construction on the plot as alleged by him, On the other band, the statement of the respondent sufficiently proved that the petitioner was a tenant under him. He therefore found in favour of the respondent in ordering the ejectment of the petitioner. The finding was upheld in the second appeal and the learned Judge of the High Court in Chambers observed that the statement of the respondent to the effect that the petitioner was his tenant was rightly considered sufficient by the learned District Judge to establish the tenancy.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner we see no reason to interfere with this concurrent finding of fact by the two Courts. This petition has no force and is therefore, liable to be dismissed.
5. Even otherwise this petition as filed on the 18th of April 1979 was barred by 15 days. In this connection the petitioner has also filed an application for the condonation of the delay. It is alleged that the petitioner fell it was suffering from fever and was advised rest from 19th March, 1979 to 31st of March 1979 by his doctor. Although in the petition it is stated that a certificate issued by the doctor was attached but no such certificate was actually found on the file of the Court. On our enquiry however, the learned A. O. R. For the petitioner produced a certificate from his record. It purports as having been issued by a private practitioner on 19th of March 1979 and is to the effect that the petitioner was suffering from fever and was advised rest from 19th March, 1979 to 31st of March, 1979. On the face of it no reliance can be placed on it. This petition is therefore, liable to be dismissed on the short ground as barred by time.
6. For the foregoing reasons this petition is dismissed as tine barred as also on the merits.