AHMAD ALI J. The petitioner through this writ of certiorari under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, has called in question the vires of Judgment & Order dated 21.12.2019 of the learned Addl.
District Judge-XIV , Peshawar , whereby his civil revision filed against order dated 19.09.2019 of the learned Rent Controller-I, Peshawar , was dismissed.
2. Brief and essential facts for the decision of present writ petition are that the respondent No.1 filed a petition for eviction of the respondent No.2 from shop No.716 under the provisions of Section 13 of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The petition was allowe d by the learned Rent Controller-I, Peshawar , vide Judgment/Order dated 19.02.2019 and during the execution proceedings, petitioner stepped in the Court with an application u/s 12(2)
CPC against the order dated 19.02.2019. He in his said application claimed to be the tenant in the shop since 1940 as before him, his father was tenant in the said shop; and that he has regularly been paying the rent of shop to respondent No.1 . The respondent No.1/ landlord contested the application. The learned trial Court after framing issues and having recorded the evidenc e of parties, dismissed the application of petitioner vide Order dated 19.09.2019 and his civil revision was also dismissed vide Judgment dated 21.12.2019 passed by the learned Addl.
District Judge-XIV Peshawar . Now the petitioner has filed this writ petition against the concurrent findings of the two learned Courts below .
3. Arguments heard and record gone through.
4. The petitioner in his application u/s 12(2) CPC contended that he has been in the actual possession of demised shop since 1940 in capacity of a tenant of the father of respondent No.1 and in support of his version he produced copies of some paid electricity and gas bills. The electricity bills portray the Shop No.821 and the gas bills do not contain any shop number or description thereof. Whereas, respondent No.1 in his rent petition sought vacant possession of the Shop No.716 which is apparent from the headnote of rent petition.
5. A heavy burden was on the shoulders of petitioner to prove his tenancy and possession over the shop No.716.
There is neither any proof of alleged tenancy nor any other record is there to prove that the petitioner was tenant in the shop in question. He has not produce d any recent receipt as to the payment of rent and only two receipts could have been brought on record, of which, one was pertaining to the month of Novem ber-1994 and the other was for the month of August-1995. Production of two twenty-five years old receipts cannot be taken as conclusive proof of continuation of the tenancy . Petitioner took the refuge that respondent No.1 /land lord stopped receiving rent from them for the last three years; however admittedly , no rent for this alleged period of three years was paid by money order or through any other permissible means. If for sake of the argument the eviction petition is reopened and petitioner is impleaded therein, even then the same would not be beneficial for petitioner as he would be evicted from the shop on the basis of default in payment of rent. Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any illegality or irregularity or jurisdictional defect in the concurrent findings of law and fact of the forum below , warranting interference by this Court. There is no merit in this petition and the same is therefore, dismissed in limine with no order as to cost.