MUHAMMAD KHALID MEHMOOD KHAN, J.---Through this civil revision, the petitioner has assailed the judgment and decree dated 29-2-2000 passed by leaned Additional District Judge, Bhakkar, whereby he set aside the judgment and decree dated 26-11-1995 passed by learned Civil Judge, Bhakkar.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that petitioners instituted a suit for possession against the respondents of land measuring 2 kanals situated in revenue estate village Machhawarli Tehsil Bhakkar claiming that they are owners of land measuring 2 kanals detailed in the head note of the plaint and that they rented out the said land to respondents, the respondents were paying the rent regularly, however, one month ago they stopped paying the rent and has now refused permanently to pay the rent or to vacate the land. The petitioner further alleged that the respondents have no right and authority to cut the standing trees from the suit land. The respondents resisted the suit and filed written statement claiming that the petitioners have no cause of action against them. They are in possession of land from the days of their forefathers and are in possession of the land for more than 50 years. They also raised the plea of adverse possession. They claimed that the suit land is a residential property and they have constructed their house on it. The suit is false and frivolous. The learned Civil Court framed the following issues:-- "ISSUES.
(1) Whether the suit is time barred? OPD
(2) Whether the plaintiffs have got no cause of action? OPD
(3) Whether the suit is wrongly valued? OPD
(4) Whether the plaintiffs are owners of the suit land? OP
(5) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the decree for possession as prayed for? OPP (5-A) Whether the plaintiffs have described their title qua the 'suit property by way of adverse possession? OPD
(6) Relief.
3. Both the parties adduced their respective evidence both verbal and documentary. The learned civil court vide judgment and decree dated 26-11-2001 decreed the suit. The respondents assailed the decree dated 26-11-2002 through an appeal which was allowed on 28-9-2009. Hence the present revision petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it has been proved on record that they are the owners of property and the respondents are their lessee. They were paying rent to the petitioner and on their failure to pay the rent they have filed the suit. He further contends that claim of adverse possession of respondents is against injunctions of Islam. He further contends that only one of the defendant appeared in the witness box. He claims that impugned decree dated 28-8- 2000 is against law and facts and suffers from misreading and non-reading of evidence available on record.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. The main ground of the petitioner in the suit is that they are owners of land measuring 2 kanals.
They have rented out the suit land to the respondents, but have not mentioned the rate of rent agreed between the parties. It is astonishing that the land owner is claiming the occupation of the respondents as tenant but is not disclosing the rate of rent. The documents placed on record by both the parties show that the suit land is not agricultural land and the respondents have constructed their houses on it, the status of suit land in Revenue Record is Ghair Mumkin Abadi". In evidence P.W. Ghulam Hussain deposed that they have rented out the land to Ramzan on rent at the rate of Rs,300 per month, but he admits that 3-4 rooms are constructed by the respondents. In cross-examination he admits that in the village there is no tenant and landlord. The other P.W. produced by the petitioner admits in cross-examination that he is not aware who constructed the rooms on the suit land. Khasra Girdawaries Exh.D 1 to D5 show that the respondents are in possession of the suit land.
7. The petitioners have miserably failed to establish that when they have rented the suit land to the respondents what was the it rate of rent. The witnesses produced by the petitioner admits that they are not aware who constructed the rooms on the suit land. Further the petitioner himself admitted in his cross-examination that 3/4 rooms were constructed by the defendants, the specific stance of the petitioner in his plaint is that respondents are tenants/lessees, but no written or oral evidence has been produced confirming this fact, rather, the evidence produced by the petitioner shows that the respondents are in possession of the property since tong and they have constructed their houses on the said land. For establishing the right to recover the possession the petitioner was to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant or lessee or lesser. The petitioner's admission that in his village there is no tenant and landlord this very admission of petitioner is sufficient to negate his claim against the respondents.
8. As far as the question of adverse possession of the respondents is concerned, both the courts below have decided this issue against the respondents and the respondents have not assailed these findings, hence the respondents have failed to establish their right on the suit land as owner.
9. The petitioners have also failed to rebut the assertion of respondents that they are in possession of suit-land for the last 50 years and as such the suit is prima facie barred by time. The learned appeal Court has scanned the evidence minutely and his conclusion that respondents are not the tenants of petitioner is fully established on record. In view of the above the judgment and decree passed by the learned appeal Court suffers from no infirmity and as such this revision fails and is