AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J. --- Through this appeal the appellant who has claimed to be a landlord filed ejectment petition against respondents on 6.3.2002 with regard to nonresidential building. The respondents appeared and denied relationship of landlord and tenant. The learned Trial Court in view of complicated situation of the case, out of the divergent pleadings of the parties framed issues and invited the parties to produce their respective evidence. The learned Rent Controller vide judgment dated 28.2.2004 accepted the petition and directed the respondents to hand over the possession of the shop within one month. The respondents preferred an appeal against the said judgment before the first Appellate Court and the same was partly allowed vide the impugned judgment dated 12.11.2005, hence this appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the findings of the learned first Appellate Court while partly allowing the appeal of respondents Nos. 1 to 3 are arbitrary and based on hypothesis; that the findings of the first Appellate Court are result of mis-reading and non-reading of evidence.
Learned counsel lastly contended that the learned first. Appellate Court has ignored the report of Local 'Commissioner, according to which Sohail Akhtar respondent No. 1 was in possession of shop as tenant under the appellant and said Sohail Akhtar also admitted his tenancy under the appellant.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contends that the judgment of the first Appellate Court is based on well-reasoned findings and has prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the entire record with their able assistance.
5. I have no doubt in my mind while adjudicating upon second appeal filed under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 that the principle of C.P.C. Mentioned in Section 100 are to be kept in mind. I have noticed that the first Appellate Court has discussed every aspect of the case and has also taken note of the previous litigation filed by the appellant-eviction petitioner himself. In the previous suit filed for permanent injunction learned Trial Court had also appointed Local Commission whose report is Ex.A-5 who appeared as AW.4. It is clearly established that the premises measuring 1 Marla and 1 Sarsai owned by the eviction petitioner asked to be vacated was in possession of the petitioner himself even before the filing of the ejectment petition and further that other portion which was owned by Riaz-ul-Haq and Muhammad Ashraf, against which the eviction petitioner claims an agreement to sell in his favour, is in possession of owners. The suit filed under agreement to sell was dismissed by the learned Trial Court and the appeal is pending before the first Appellate Court. The first Appellate Court has noted that as on 16.7.2001 the eviction petitioner claims to have purchased the plot and he alleged that on 18.7.2001 he has rented out the shop. This is highly improbable; therefore, first Appellate Court has taken into consideration every bit of evidence and reached to a right conclusion. As the matter for specific performance of agreement to sell is pending in shape of appeal, if the first Appellate Court will come to a conclusion that there was a genuine agreement with regard to the suit property in favour of the appellant, then Court will certainly grant a decree and he will get possession of the suit property, in execution of the decree.
SAO. Dismissed.