ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-This ,petition by Muhammad Ali Shah, is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court (Bahawalpur Bench), dated 8-6-1981, dismissing his S. A. O., in a rent case.
2. The facts giving rise to the present petition, briefly, are that Mahmood Ali Shah, petitioner took a shop on rent from one Said Khan, pre--decessor-in-interest of Hasan Bibi etc., respondents, vide rent deed dated 4-5-1966, at the monthly rent of Rs.
100. Mahmood Ali Shah, defaulted in paying the monthly rent from September, 1967 onward. The landlord, therefore, filed an application for his ejectment on 15-8-1968. He also took up the ground of `requirement of the shop for personal use'.
The petitioner in his written statement, took up the position that he was not the tenant of Said Khan, but that of one Karim Bakhsh, to whom he had been paying the rent regularly. An issue was, therefore, framed, regarding existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The Rent Con--troller came to the conclusion that the said relationship existed between the parties and since the petitioner had, admittedly, not been paying the rent to the said Said Khan, he was automatically a `defaulter'. The peti--tioner was, therefore, directed to vacate the shop. He, therefore, filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge which was dismissed on 14-5-1976.
He then filed an S. A. O. Before the High Court, which too, met the same fate, vide the impugned judgment.
He has now come up to this Court through the present petition.
3. The main contention raised by the petitioner's counsel was the same, namely, that he was tenant of Karim Bakhsh and not that of the respondent. This is a question of fact which has been conclusively decided by the three Courts below by concurrent findings. In the end the petitioner's counsel prayed for extension of time for vacating the shop in question. It appears that the petition had been filed merely for this purpose, to gain some more time. It would be noticed that application for ejectment was filed in June, 1968, and the S. A. O. Was finally dismissed in June, 1961, i.e., after 13 long years. Considering that he had hardly any ground to urge the petitioner should, in fact, not have been advised to file the present petition.
In view of what has been observed above, we are not inclined to grant any extension of time. The petition is dismissed with costs.