' MUHAMMAD YAWAR ALI, J.--Both the learned counsel for the parties have no objection if this case be treated as "PACCA CASE" and decided on merits.
2. This Civil Revision filed under section 115, C.P.C. Is directed against the judgment and decree dated 14-9-2009 passed by Additional District Judge Sialkot.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that respondent filed a suit for possession seeking ejectment of tenant wherein it was stated that property measuring 1 Kanal bearing Khewat No,184, Khatooni No,530, Khasra No,1060/792 situated in Mouza Hamza Ghaus Tehsil and District Sialkot was owned by one Dr. Samee Ullah who had given the property on rent to the petitioners and after Dr. Samee Ullah expired, his legal heirs alienated it in favour of plaintiff / respondent. It was stated in the plaint that respondent/plaintiff required the property in question for his personal use and occupation and the petitioners/defendants were neither vacating it nor paying any rent. The petitioners/ defendants denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and took the plea that disputed property belonged to one Mst. Saleema Bibi and they were paying rent to the original owner. The trial Court framed one issue which is as follows:-- "Whether relationship of landlord and tenant does exist between the petitioner and respondents?
OPA.
4. After recording of evidence the trial Court exercising its powers as a Rent Controller accepted the claim of respondent/plaintiff and passed an ejectment order, which was challenged and learned Appellate Court remanded the case to the trial Court vide judgment dated 10-5-2008 with the observation that property in dispute was beyond limits of Municipal Corporation and the trial Court C should decide the case as a Civil Court and not as a Rent Controller. After remand the trial Court framed six issues on 23-1-2009 which are as follows:--
(1) Whether defendants are wilful defaulter for the payment of rent? OPP.
(2) Whether plaintiff is in need the suit property for his personal use? OPP.
(3) Whether plaintiff is exclusive owner of the suit property and is entitled the decree for possession as prayed for? OPP.
(4) Whether the instant suit is bad due to non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD.
(5) Whether the defendants are tenant of one Mst. Saleema Bibi and as such the plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD.
(6) Relief."
5. On 6-6-2009 the trial Court on the basis of its findings on issue No,3 held that petitioners (herein) are trespassers and suit of plaintiff/respondent for possession was decreed with costs. Both the parties assailed order of the trial Court dated 6-6-2009. The petitioners (herein) were aggrieved to the D extent of order of ejectment and respondent (herein) was aggrieved as arrears of rent had not been awarded,
6. That learned Additional Sessions Judge Sialkot by a consolidated judgment and decree dated 14-9-2009 dismissed the appeal of the petitioners and accepted the D appeal of the respondent.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Rent Controller did not advert to and decide each and every issue separately and by so doing has caused miscarriage of justice. That the trial Court in its order dated 6-6-2009 has committed a material illegality by exercising its jurisdiction as a Rent Controller and not as a Civil Court. It is stated that caption of judgment dated 6-6-2009 after remand reads as under:-- "In the Court of Liaquat Ali Ranjha Rent Controller Sialkot"and after the order being signed it reads `Rent Controller'. Since the property was beyond the jurisdiction of Municipal F Corporation, Rent Controller could have no jurisdiction in the matter and any ejectment order passed by a Rent Controller is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel further submitted that petitioners were "tenants holding over" and both the Courts below have failed to take this important factor into consideration. Learned counsel for the petitionef in support of his contentions has relied on cases titled Mubarik Ali and others v. Syed Ishaq Hussain Rizvi and others 1989 M LD 497, Syed Kamal Shah v. Inayat Muhammad and others 2002 CLC 1704, Abdul Mateen and others v. Mst. Mustakhia 2006 SCM R 50, Muhammad Bakhsh v. Ellahi Bakhsh and others 2003 SCM R 286 and Hakim-ud-Din through L.Rs, and others v. Faiz Bakhsh and others 2007 SCM R 870.
8. Learned counsel for respondent has opposed the petition and contended that suit which was filed by respondent on 21-12-2005 was for possession of property and arrears of rent from July, 2005 onwards and this was a civil suit and not an ejectment petition in spite of the caption of the suit before "Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller Sialkot," That petitioners/ defendants while resisting the petition filed a written statement and not a written reply meaning thereby that they submitted to the jurisdiction of a Civil Judge and not before a Rent Controller. It was submitted that had order of the Civil Judge dated 6-6-2009 been passed by trial Court in its capacity as Rent Controller no decree sheet would have been prepared. The decree sheet which was prepared in pursuance of order of the trial Court is dated 6-6-2009 and has been signed by the trial Court as a Civil Judge.
That trial Court has first given a finding on issue No,3 and subsequently a finding on issues Nos.1, 2 and 5 followed by finding of issue No,4 as is evident from a plain reading of the trial Court dated 6- 6-2009. That no miscarriage of justice has been caused by not giving findings on each and every issue separately. That petitioners (herein) have accepted the respondent as their landlord as is evident from a bare reading of cross-examination of D.W.2 and it is for this reason they cannot deny relationship of landlord and tenant.
' Lastly it is submitted that there is a finding of learned Additional District Judge Sialkot dated 14-9- 2009 impugned herein to the effect that respondent has become exclusive owner of property as per sale-deed Exh.P.9 which so far remains unrebutted.
9. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
10. It was not incumbent on the trial Court to have adverted to, dilated upon and decided every issue separately.
' Order XX, rule 5, C.P.C. Reads as follows:-- "5. Court to state its decision on each issue. --In suits in which issues have been framed, the Court shall state its finding or decision, with the reasons therefore, upon each separate issue, unless the finding upon any one or more of the issues is sufficient for the decision of the suit."
A judgment which deals with all points raised, fulfils the requirements of law even though it may not have discussed each issue separately. Where certain issues were inextricably linked with each other and those were considered together, such consideration would not be violative of the mandate of law as has been held by the apex Court in cases titled Aziz Ullah Khan and others v. Gul Muhammad Khan 2000 SCM R 1647 and Muhammad Amir through L.Rs, v. Muhammad Sher and others 2006 SCM R 185. A perusal of judgment of the trial Court dated 6-6-2009, reveals that the Civil Judge clearly stated that "This Court is bound to try the present suit as civil suit and not Rent Petition". In any case a decree H sheet has been drawn and supports the contention that the trial Court decided the case as a Civil Court and not as a Rent Controller. The "Decree Sheet" accompanying the judgment of the trial Court dated 6-6-2009, carries the stamp and signatures of Civil Judge 1st Class. That Faizan Rasheed, Building Clerk DPO Office Sialkot D.W.2 admitted in his cross-examination that relevant record reveals that the petitioners received a notice from the respondent dated 20-10-2007, addressed to the DPO Sialkot that the respondent had purchased the property in question. The petitioners herein failed to rebut the II respondent/plaintiff's claim to ownership of disputed property acquired through Sale-deed Exh.P.9. The respondent herein stepped into the shoes of D1. Samee Ullah and there is nothing on record to show otherwise. The respondent/plaintiff's claim that he needs the property for his personal use and occupation stands unrebutted.
11. The petitioners have not been able to point out any material illegality, misreading or non- reading of evidence and as such this petition is dismissed.