This civil revision calls in question the order, dated 6-4-1980, of District Judge, Sialkot, affirming the order, dated 21-5-1978, of Civil Judge, Narowal, dismissing the application of the petitioner for the grant of a temporary injunction.
2. The property in dispute is a large premises consisting of 18 rooms situate in Narowal Town. It was evacuee property and was in possession of the petitioner. It was disposed of by the Settlement authorities through an open auction. One Din Muhammad made the highest bid and it was transferred in his favour. He died before the P. T. D. Could be issued. Consequently the P. T. D. Was made out in the names of his legal heiRs.By a registered deed, dated 15-1-1963, the legal heirs through their special attorney, sold the property to one Muhammad Ramzan. Subsequently, by another registered sale-deed, dated 12-12-1978, Muhammad Rarnzan trans--ferred the property to the respondent. After purchasing the property the respondent served a notice upon the petitioner under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The petitioner did not pay any rent to the respondent whereupon the latter instituted proceedings for his eviction. Before the Rent Controller the petitioner took up the plea that the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties. This plea was put to trial. The Rent Controller decided it in favour of the respondent and directed the ejectment of the petitioner. The petitioner went in appeal before the Additional District Judge and the High Court but without any success.
During the course of the execution proceedings an objection was raised that the petitioner was not in occupation of the entire property and that some portions thereof were being held by some other persons The respondent then filed a fresh *application for eviction against the other occupants also. The other occupants took up the plea that they were not holding the property independently in their own right but they were in possession under the petitioner. Thereupon the respondent filed another application for eviction before the Rent Controller against the .Petitioner. The petitioner once again raised the plea that the relationship of landlord and teant did not exist between the parties. This plea was tried afresh and the learned Rent Controller once again decided it against the petitioner and made an order for his ejectment. The petitioner challenged this order before the District Judge but without any success.
3. While the above litigation was going on the petitioner filed three different suits one after the other. In the first suit be sought a declaration allegedly executed by Muhammad Ramzan in favour of the respondent was bogus. This suit was later withdrawn when the respondent made a statement that he would not eject the petitioner except in accordance with law. In the second suit he asked for declaration that the transfer of the property made in favour of Din Muhammad was illegal and void. This suit is still pending. The third suit which has given rise to this civil revision was also for a declaration. In this suit the petitioner once again attacked the validity of the sale made by Muhammad Ramzan in favour of the respondent`s and alleged that the sale deed allegedly executed by Muhammad Ramzan was fabricated, false and bogus and had not the effect of transferring any legal right or title whatsoever in the property in dispute in favour of the respondent.
He also questioned the validity of the order of the Rent Controller directing his eviction from the property.
4. Together with the third suit the petitioner also asked for a temporary injunction restraining the respondent from evicting him pendente lite. This application was rejected by the trial Court. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the District Judge but without any success. He has now come in revision to this Court.
5. It is to be noticed that the petitioner has brought this suit on the footing that the sale made by Muhammad Ramzan in favour of the respondent did not exist at all and as such the respondent was not owner of the property in dispute. Now in the two applications for eviction brought by the respondent against the petitioner the Rent Controller had struck an issue whether the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. It was open to the petitioner to attack the validity ' of the sale allegedly made in favour of the respondent by Muhammad Ramzan while leading evidence on the said issue. After considering all the evidence led by the parties the Rent Controller found that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties in both the proceedings. The findings o the Rent Controller were affirmed in appeal by the District Judge.
These were findings essentially on a question of fact. There appears to be no reason wily the respondent should not be given the benefit of these findings while considering the petitioner's prayer for a temporary injunction. I am, there fore, of the view that it is not a fit case where the temporary injunction should be granted to the petitioner. This civil revision is accordingly dismissed with costs.