Verily double storey building i,e, property No, S-90-R-40-A, Urdu Bazar, Lahore was titled by father of the respondent. The petitioners being tenants were inducted therein to run a Government School, however, the petitioners made default in paying arrears of rent as well as outstanding bills of the utility, which compelled the landlord to approach learned Rent Controller, Lahore for their eviction, 'surprisingly petitioners also failed to deposit the tentative rent determined by that forum under Section 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 followed by eviction order dated 22.12.2003, but it was not assailed any further and pursuant thereto the possession of the building was handed over on 20.04.2004 without making payment of arrears of rent as well as utility bills and for recovery of outstanding amount of Rs,2,46,190/- suit was filed by the respondent against the petitioners, which was resisted only to the effect that it was based on wrong calculation of arrears and only Rs,63,648/-were outstanding against them. The learned Trial Court after collecting and appreciating the .evidence vide judgment dated 04.02.2014 decreed the suit as prayed for.
Though it was assailed by means of an appeal before the learned District Court, but having been failed through judgment and decree dated 06.11.2015, hence, instant Civil Revision.
2. Heard. Record perused.
3. The study of the pleadings besides evidence available on record narrow down the litigation and there was no confusion to the effect that the tenancy was admitted, initiation of eviction proceedings, its acceptance as well as the delivery of possession on 20.04.2004 and that rent of 16 months starting from 01.01.2003 to 20.04.2004 was outstanding against the petitioners was also not disputed among the ties to the lis. The sole dispute among the parties was rate of rent at the relevant time. It was the version of the respondent that rate of rent was Rs,9180/- per month, whereas the petitioners -were of the view that monthly rent was Rs,7344/-, but the examination of receipts (Exh. D-1 to D-29) was reflective of the fact that during the period w,e,f, 03.07.2000 to 10.12.2002, the petitioners at their own paid the rent at the rate, which was demanded by the landlord through his suit. Not only these documents were brought on record by the petitioners rather their witnesses (DW-1 and DW-2) also admitted this fact. The argument of learned Law Officer on behalf of the petitioners that the rent at that rate was paid under coercion could not be believed. The authenticity of the receipts (Exh. D-1 to D-29) was neither challenged through independent suit nor vide contents of the written statement and it would not be plausible to accept that a private person through coercion could procure said receipts and that too from the government departments. Moreover not an iota of evidence was examined by the petitioners how undue influence or coercion was extended upon them in recovering the rent reflected in the said receipts and thereafter neither the petitioners could resile it nor they could be allowed to take a summersault. The calculation based on Exh. D-1 to D-29 by the Courts below was perfect and nothing wrong could be highlighted by the learned Law Officer, who also failed to pinpoint any irregularity or material illegality as well as misreading or nan-reading of evidence on their part in passing the impugned judgments to call for interference by this Court in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
4. Resultantly, this Civil Revision being devoid of any merit is dismissed.