MUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN , J. -- Through this second appeal the appellant calls in question the validity of impugned judgments dated 24.07.2013 and 26.11.2015 passed by the learned Courts below . Through the former the learned Rent Tribunal while accepting eviction petition of respondent No. I directed the appellant to vacate the demised property within a period of sixty days and through the latter the learned first Appellate Court dismissed his appeal against the order of the learned Rent Tribunal.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that respondent No. I filed a petition against the appellant for his eviction from the demised property fully described in para No. 1. of the petition inter-alia on the grounds of personal bona fide need, willful default and causing damage to the demised premises. The appellant contested the said petition by filing written reply alleging therein that demised premises was rented out by one Surriya Begum to father of the appellant namely Riasat Ali through rent deed dated 21.09.1994 as such relationship of landlord and tenant does not exist between the parties. Out of divergent pleadings of the parties, learned Rent Tribunal framed necessary issues, recorded evidence of the parties thereupon and after hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties vide impugned order dated 24.07.2013 accepted the same. Being aggrieved the appellant filed appeal before the learned first Appellate Court which was dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 26.11.2015. Hence, this second appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order/judgment are based on surmises and conjectures and result of mis-reading and non-reading of the evidence; that the appellant through cogent and reliable evidence proved that relationship of landlord and tenant does exist betwe en the parties and that father of the appellant is tenant of one Mst. Surriya Begum through rent deed Ex.R3 that this solid piece of evidence has not been considered by the learned Courts below while passing the impugned order/judgment; that evidence in this case has not been properly appreciated and the conclusions drawn therefrom are liable to be set-aside.
4. Conversely , learned counsel for respondent No. I submits that the impugned order/judgment are result of correct appreciation of the material available on record; that the rent deed Ex.R3 relied upon by the appellant is not-with regard to the demised property as such the same has rightly not been given weightage by the learned Courts below; that respondent No. 1 is owner of the demised property , therefore, by virtue of her title she is considered to be the landlord of the demised premises; that concurrent findings of fact based on sound reasoning need no interference by this Court in second appeal.
5. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.,
6. The stance of the appellant. is that his father was inducted in the demised premises as tenant by one Mst.
Surriya Begum through rent deed Ex.R3. The description of the property mentioned in the said deed is 27-A front side first floor, Peeco Road, Badamibagh, while the demised premises is upper portion of shop No. 2 of plot No. 27- A meaning thereby that demised premises is quite different than that of the property. described in the rent deed Ex.R3. One of the witnesses of the appel lant Abid Ali while appearing in the witnes s-box as RW3 admitted that the appellant and his father is doing business at the same place but separately , therefore, both the Courts below rightly arrived at a conclusion that demised premises is independently occupied by the appellant and it has no nexus with the property which is in possession of his father . As per letter of LDA Mark A respondent No. I is owner of the demised premises, therefore, by virtue of said document she is presumed to be the landlord and the person in possession of the property would be considered as tenant. Reliance is placed on case reported as Shujar Islam v.
Muhammad Siddique and 2 others (PLD 2007 Supreme Court 45).
7. Both the Courts below after scanning the evidence in its true perspective have arrived at an irresistible conclusion that relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties. In second appeal this Court cannot substitute the concurrent findings of the Courts below unless it is established on record that these are perverse and unjust. Reliance in this regard is placed on case reported as Muhammad Mahmood v. Fazalur Rehman (NLR 1984 AC 522 ) wherein it has been observed as under:- "The interference by this Court in second appeal on question of concurrent facts is 'confined to those cases alone where the finding is based on mis-reading of evidence or the finding is arrived at in ignorance of material piece of evidence on record or the appraisal of evidence by the Courts below as perverse."
8. Similar view was taken in case reported as Sheikh Atta Muhammad v. Mian Muhammad Abdullah and 10 others (PLD 1971 Lahore 210 ) wherein it has been held as under:- "Time and again this Court as well as former Federal Court and the Supreme Court in this country have laid down that second appeal is not competent on a question of finding of fact if the finding is based on consideration of entire evidence. Inference drawn from evidence remains an inference of fact unless it is manifestly unjust, is based on no evidence or is concluded from inadmissible evidence."
9. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any mis-reading or non-reading of the evidence calling for interference by this Court in this second appeal. Resultantly , this appeal being without any substance is dismissed. No order as to costs.