This order will dispose of R. S. A. No. 51/81 and W. P. No. 1154/81. The facts of the case may be briefly stated :-
2. The respondent filed a petition for the eviction of the appellant from the house in dispute. The appellant denied existence of relation--ship of landlord and tenant. The appellant relied on an agreement of the said to have been executed by the respondent. The appellant claimed that the respondent bad agreed to sell the house in question for a sum of 1z,s. 15,000 out of which Rs. 10,000 had been paid in advance. After he filing of the petition for eviction by the respondent, the appellant also pled a suit for the specific performance of the agreement. This agreement was denied by the respondent and, therefore, the only questions involved m the suit were whether the respondent had agreed to sell the house in dispute to the appellant and whether the appellant was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. This controversy between the parties was reflected in issues Nos. 1 and 2 framed by the trial Court. After recording the evidence of both the parties, the learned Civil Judge side his judgment dated 6th February, 1980, came to the conclusion that the agreement was a forged document and had been fabricated only to create a defence. The appellant also filed an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, vide his Judgment dated 15th January, 1981. Both the civil suit as well as the petition for eviction had been tried together. In view of the findings in .He civil suit the petition for eviction was also decided in favour of the 3-Rspondent and order of eviction was passed against the appellant on 6th February, 1980.
3. The question whether the respondent had entered into an agreement for sale in favour of the appellant stands concluded by the finding of fact which is based on proper appreciation of evidence and keeping in view the entire circumstances .Of the case. It was noted specifically by the learned Additional District Judge that the alleged agreement Exh. P. 1 was on a plain paper and that the thumb impression purported to be of the respondent was blurred and could not be deciphered.
There was no separate receipt for the payment of the amount of Rs. 10,000. The appellant could not justify the sources for the Payment of the heavy amount of Rs. 10,000. The learned Additional District Judge has also taken note of the fact that the suit for specific performance was filed only after the, petition for eviction had been 3 led by the respondent. The contradictions, in the statement of the original witnesses and that of the plaintiff were also duly taken rote of.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant has failed to make out any fund to justify interference in the concurrent finding of fact. This appeal has no force which is hereby dismissed in limine in view of the finding that there was no sale agreement subsisting between the parties petition for eviction was also rightly accepted. In these circumstances is also no justification for interference in the orders of eviction in the exercise of the constitutional jurisdiction. The writ petition No. 1154/81 is also dismissed in limine.