MUSHTAQ HUSSAINJ.-Khushi Muhammad, etc. Are in possession as tenants of half portion of shop No. P-207, Ward No. 6, Jhang Bazar, Lyallpur. On 28-4-1971 Muqarrab Ali, the landlord, filed an application for ejectment on the ground of default in payment of rent from February, 1970 to March, 1971. The application was contested and three issues were framed, out of which issue No. 2 was not pressed. The learned Rent Controller found by his order dated 19-3-1976 that the present appellants were in default and ordered their ejectment. Appeals filed by them against this order were rejected on 7-6-1976 and 30-10-1977. Leave was granted by this Court on 19.4-1978 against the latter order of the High Court.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the landlord had originally served a notice on 15-9-1970 on the present appellants asking them to vacate the premises on the ground that the tenancy was expiring on the evening of 31st December, 1970 and that he needed the shop for his own use and that of his son. He submits that no mention of any default in the payment of rent was made in this notice although it was sent at least seven months after the date on which the default in payment of rent is supposed to have begun. He wants us to infer from this that the petitioners were not in default. This is eminently a question of fact. All the courts below have concurrently found that the appellants were in default in the payment of rent and it is not for us to reappraise the evidence on this point.
3. Learned counsel further submitted that the appellants produced receipts of rent for the period in dispute which were not admitted by the landlord and were dubbed as forged by him. The matter was referred to the handwriting expert who was positive that the receipt for the month of November, 1970 was in the handwriting of the respondent but about others he was not able to give any definite or positive opinion. It has been submitted that when the report of the Handwriting Expert with regard to the receipt for November, 1970 was accepted by the lower Court, the Court should have presumed that the other receipts were also not forged and that the statement of the landlord on this aspect of the case was false and should not have been believed.
4. This again is a question of fact. It was for the lower Court to decide whether it should accept the receipts as forged or otherwise. Since the learned lower Court has dubbed them as forged it is not for us to reopen the matter.
5. Learned counsel submitted that the High Court had fallen in error in sending the appellants with the responsibility of having produced the receipts in respect of rent having been held to have been forged. The question whether the rent was remitted by money order from January, 1971 is of no consequence whatsoever.
6. This appeal has no legs to stand upon and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. The appellants shall put the respondent in possession within one month from today.