1. DORAB PATEL, J.-The dispute in this petition for leave is about a one---third portion of a house in Khanewal. Multan District, bearing number 51 in block No. 11. This house was occupied by three persons, One Muhammad Ramzan, the petitioner and the third respondent to whom we will refer as the respondent. The petitioner claims to have filed a C. H. Form for the entire house on 17-2-1959 and Mr. Farooq stated that the petitioner's application was allowed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 10-12-1959. However, even learned counsel admitted that this order was not correct, because the portion of the house occupied by Muhammad Ramzan was admittedly non- evacuee, therefore, to this extent at least the petitioner's C. H. Form was illegally allowed. Be that as it may, the respondent had filed an N. C. H. Form and learned counsel stated that the respondent had applied for house number 50,, not for house number 51 although he was living in house number 51. His application was also allowed on 23-I1-1959. Then two years later, the petitioner filed an eviction application against the respon--dent for his eviction in the Court of a Rent Controller and Mr. Farooq stated that this application was disposed of by compromise because the respondent had attorned to the petitioner. However, after admitting the petitioner's title, according to Mr. Farooq, the respondent filed an application for the amendment of this N. C. H. Form and the prayer in this application was that he bad applied for the house in his possession and that he had inadvertently described this house as number 51. This application was dis--missed by a Deputy Settlement Commissioner, but as an Additional Settlement Commissioner allowed the respondent's application, the petitioner filed a revision against the Additional Settlement Commissioner's order which was dismissed. Therefore, he filed a writ petition in the Lahore Seat of the West Pakistan High Court and a learned Judge of the West Pakistan High Court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the case for a rehearing to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner.
2. This judgment, though crucial to the arguments of learned counsel, has not been filed, but we were informed that it was pronounced on 20th September, 1968.
3. On the remand of the case, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner heard both the petitioner and the respondent and held by his order dated 21-7-1971 that the non-evacuee portion of house No. 51 consisted of two divisible units, one of which was occupied by the petitioner, whilst the other was occupied by the respondent, therefore, he was of the view that the respondent had been rightly permitted to correct his N. C. H. Form and that the non---evacuee portion of the house should be divided between the petitioner and the respondent. But the petitioner had relied, inter alia, on the fact that the respondent had entered into a compromise with him before the rent Controller and attorned to him. In repelling this plea of the petitioner, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner observed:- "The honourable Mr. Justice Karam Elahee Chauhan has given no weight to the plea of Haji Qutab Din about the rent deed by which Settlement Commissioner has sealed the fate of Bashir Ahmad.
4. His Lordship further remarked that this a case of confusion of numbering of the property."
5. Accordingly, having repelled the petitioner's plea, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner transferred to the petitioner and the respondent the portions of house No. 51 occupied by them. The petitioner challenged this older in an appeal which was dismissed by the Settlement Commissioner on 3-11- 1973, because the learned Settlement Commissioner agreed with the finding of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner that the evacuee portions of house No. 51 consisted of two independent portion. The petitioner challenged this order in a writ petition in the High Court, but the writ petition was dismissed in limine by the High Court on 25-4-1974 on the short ground that the find--ing about the divisibility of the property was a finding of fact which had be--come final. Hence this petition for leave.
6. Mr. Farooq relied, inter alia, on the fact that the respondent had originally applied for house No. 50 and he also laid very great stress on the fact that the respondent had attorned to the petitioner before the Rent Controller and thus acknowledged the petitioner's title to the portion of the property in dispute. But the deputy settlement commissioner was of the opinion that the petitioner's reliance on this compromise before the Rent Controller was misconceived, because of the view taken by the High Court in its judgment of 23rd September, 1968. That judgment has not been filed, nor have we been referred to the observation on which the Deputy Settlement Commissioner relied, and, on the other hand, Mr Farooq conceded that the petitioner did not challenge the judgment. Of the High Court of 23rd September, 1968. Therefore his reliance on the rent note executed by the respondent before the Rent Controller is misconceived.
7. As the petitioner cannot rely on this alleged rent note, the only question is whether as pointed out by the High Court, the property in dispute consisted of two independent units. Apart from the fact that the petitioner and the respondent have been living for decades in the portions of the house transferred to them, both the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and the Settlement Commissioner have decided this issue against the petitioner on the, basis of evidence, and we are satisfied that there was ample material in support of the concurrent finding thus reached by the tribunals.
8. Therefore, the High Court would not have been justified in setting aside this concurrent finding in its limited constitutional jurisdiction.
9. The petition is without merit and is, therefore, dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.