' SYED MUHAMMAD KAZIM RAZA SHAMSI, L.-This second rent appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28-6-2007 passed by Mr. Muhammad Ahmad Farooqi, learned Additional District Judge, Khushab whereby he maintained the order dated 29-5-2007 passed by Ch. Mehboob Ahmad Khan, learned Rent Controller, Khushab whereby the ejectment petition was accepted.
2. Facts of the case briefly stated are that Muhammad Javed claimed to be a auction purchaser of the property in dispute from the Tehsil Municipal Administration, Jauharabad filed ejectment petition against Muhammad Riaz on the ground that later paid the monthly rent up till January, 2003 whereafter he defaulted in the payment of rent. The petition was contested by the respondent denying the relationship of landlord and tenant on the ground that he was in possession of the disputed premises in his own rights. The learned Rent Controller framed issue of existence of relationship of landlord and tenant, proceeded to record evidence of the parties whereafter he concluded that relationship between the parties of landlord and tenant exist,, consequently, accepted the ejectment petition. In an appeal filed against the said order, the learned first appellate court also concurred with the findings of the learned Rent Controller and dismissed the rent appeal. Feeling aggrieved by the ejectment order, recorded by both the courts below, instant appeal has been filed.
3. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and examined the whole evidence available on the record.
4. The documents Exh.A.1 to Exh.A.13 prove that the appellant is the tenant of the respondent which fact he also admitted in the suit filed by the appellant against the respondent. He is now estopped to deny the title of the landlord in view of his own admission. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant has filed a suit for declaration against the TehsilMunicipal Administration, Jauharabad. The learned counsel. For the respondent rebutted this submission by stating that the suit was dismissed by the learned civil court vide order dated 16-9-2009 against which an appeal was preferred which also met with the same fate vide judgment dated 12-1-2010.
Both the courts after duly appreciating the evidence led by both the parties had concluded that the appellant is the tenant under the respondent who defaulted in the payment of rent, therefore, no exception can be taken against this finding of the courts below which do not in any manner suffer from misreading and non-reading of evidence. The findings recorded by the courts below are liable to be maintained as such.
5. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal having no merit is dismissed with costs.