ALI BAIG, J.---The above captioned Civil First Appeal under section 96, C.P.C. has been preferred against the impugned judgment/decree dated 28-09-2018, passed by the learned Civil Judge First Class Hunza, in Civil Suit No.13/2014, whereby, the learned trial court has partially decreed the suit of present respondent/plaintiff in his favour and against the present appellants/ defendants.
2. Facts necessary for disposal of the instant Civil First Appeal have been disclosed in para No.1 of the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court which is reproduced as under for convenience:-- "Facts giving rise to the instant proceedings are that the plaintiff , rented out his Hotel known as Karakorum Highway INN to the defendant No.3 through agreement/rent deed Exh. P-6 since 1.8.2011 to till the expiry of 6 months. Plaint contains that the possession of rented premises was handed over to defendant No.3 on 1.8.2011 as such Rs.30,000/- was fixed monthly rent. Defendant No.3 retained the possession despite the expiry of the period provided under rent deed. It is further alleged that defendant No.3 occupied two rooms till the month of April 2013 without getting consent of plaintiff. During the tenancy period defendant No.3 damaged the carpets, room side tables, energy savers, door locks and curtains amounting to Rs.288280/-. Plaintiff approached defendant No.3 seeking the repairing of the rented building submitting that he caused loss during the retention as tenant. Defendant No.3 forwarded letter dated 18.1.2013 to the office of Executive Engineer B&R Hunza/Nagar addressing the repairmen of Hotel, but the such request was dishonored without any cogent reasons. Due to damages, the Hotel remained unable to put on rent resulting to which the plaintiff is entitled to get monthly Rs.30,000/- from 1st Nov. 2012 to till the satisfaction of payments as the loss of rent. Under the assessment of cost carried by Executive Engineer B&R resulted Rs.325956/- (three lac twenty five thousand nine hundred and fifty six). Plaintiff has more submitted that defendants paid Rs.35428/- (thirty five thousand four hundred and twenty eight) on account of electricity bills out of Rs.146713/- (one lac forty six thousand seven hundred and thirteen) due to which Rs.111282/- (one lac eleven thousand two hundred and eighty two) is outstanding. Plaintiff approached the offices of defendants Nos.1 and 3 by submitting various applications to redress grievances but no response received, hence this suit.
3. The present appellants Nos.1 to 3 being contesting defendants contested the suit by way of filing their joint written statement in the learned trial court, wherein, they have raised certain legal objections and have also repudiated the averments made in the plaint by the present respondent/plaintiff. ,
4. The respondent/plaintiff has also filed his rejoinder to the written statement responding legal objections raised by the appellants in their written statement and repudiating the averments/pleadings of written statement.
5. Anyhow, out of divergent pleadings of parties, the learned trial court has framed 10 issues and later on, in compliance with the judgment of Hon'ble Chief Court dated 18.04.2017, again framed additional 4 issues including relief.
6. After framing of issues, the parties led their respective evidence in the learned trial court. The plaintiff has got recorded his own statement and has produced two oral witnesses, namely Ijlal Hussain son of Abdur Rahman and Karamat Hussain son of Malik Shah, in the trial court. The respondent/plaintiff has also produced documentary evidence, Exh.P/2 to Exh.P/9, in the trial court. The present appellants have also produced six oral witnesses, namely Sakhi Ahmed Jan, Mashroof Khan, Didar Karim, Fida Hussain, Abid Hussain and Mubarak Ali, besides recording of their statements through departmental representative namely Syed Ilyas Hussain (DSP). However, the appellants have not produced any documentary evidence in the learned trial court.
7. It is pertinent to mention here that the suit of the respondent/plaintiff (Civil Suit No.13/2014) was earlier decreed by the learned trial court vide judgment/decree dated 17-08-2016. The said judgment was challenged in this Court through Civil First Appeal (CFA No.67/2016) which was allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 18-04-2017 and case was remanded back to the trial court after framing some additional issues for decision afresh. Now, the learned trial court vide the impugned judgment dated 28-09-2018 has once again partially decreed the suit of the respondent/plaintiff to the extent of sum of Rs.379,732/- in favour of the present respondent, hence this Civil First Appeal has been filed by the appellants in this Court.
8. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of appellants contended that the impugned judgment/ decree dated 28-09-2018 passed by the learned trial court is contrary to law and facts on the record of case as such the impugned judgment/decree passed by the learned trial court is not maintainable and liable to be set aside. The learned Additional Advocate General further argued that the impugned judgment/ decree passed by the learned trial court is result of misreading and non-reading of evidence of the parties as such the said impugned judgment is not sustainable. The learned Additional Advocate General further argued that the appellant No.3 had obtained the hotel of the respondent on rent on in his own accord and without getting permission from appellants Nos.1, 2 and 4, therefore, appellants No.1, 2 and 4 are not responsible to pay decretal amount to the respondent/plaintiff.
9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent opposed the instant appeal and supported the impugned judgment/decree passed by the learned trial court by contending that the learned trial court has rightly partially decreed the suit of the respondent by proper evaluation and appreciating of pro and contra evidence of the parties produced in the learned trial court. The learned counsel for the respondent further argued that the respondent has proved his claim by adducing convincing, reliable and cogent oral and documentary evidence in the learned trial court, thus the impugned judgment/decree Passed by the learned trial court may be maintained and the appeal of the appellants may be dismissed with cost.
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have gone through the entire material available on record.
11. It is case of the respondent/ plaintiff that the respondent vide tenancy agreement Exh.P/6 had rented out his well furnished hotel, known as Karakoram Highway Inn, consisting of 18 rooms along with attached washrooms situated at KKH Ganish Hunza at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per month to the respondent No.3 for the purpose of establishment of District Police Line at district Hunza and possession of said house/hotel was handed over to appellant No.3 on 01-08-2011, initially for a period of six months. It is further averred in the plaint that on expiry of tenancy period, the appellant No.3 did not vacate the rented premises and occupied the premises for further period of nine months. During tenancy period, the appellant No.3 damaged rooms' carpets, tables, door locks and curtails etc. of hotel and the respondent sustained huge monetary loss which was assessed by Assistant Executive Engineer B & R Division Hunza-Nagar as Rs.325,956/- vide abstract of costs. The respondent has further 'alleged that the appellant No.3 has also not paid electricity Bill of rented premises of several-months.
12. From perusal of record, it transpires that appellant No.3, vide letter dated 18th January 2013, Exh.P/3, addressed to the Executive Engineer B&R Division Gilgit-Baltistan PWD Hunza/ Nagar, has requested for repairing/ maintenance of District Police Line (rented premises of the respondent), wherein, he has sought the following repaired work of rented house/hotel:--
1. Repair work of water supply/ sanitarian system.
2. Replacement of doors locks.
3. Painting of 21000 sq.ft.
4. Flash tank/repair/replacement of 03 Nos.
5. Mirrors 4x4 (04 Nos.). In response to the aforesaid letter of appellant No.3, the Assistant Executive Engineer B & R Division GB PWD Hunza, vide abstract of costs, has assessed the repair/ maintenance of District Police Line at Hunza/rented premises worth Rs.325,956/-.
13. From perusal of aforesaid letter of appellant No.3 and aforesaid abstract of costs carried out by PWD authorities Hunza, it reveals that the respondent has proved his claim by adducing oral as well as documentary evidence in the learned trial court and letter of appellant No.3, Exh.P/3, amounts to admission.
Moreover, the appellants have not paid some electricity bills as evident from electricity bills Exh.P/2 and Exh.P/3. Thus, the learned trial court has rightly decreed the suit of the respondent/ plaintiff partially after proper appreciating and evaluating of evidence of the parties.
14. Consequent upon the above discussion, we hold that the learned trial court has rightly decreed the suit of the respondent/plaintiff through its well reasoned judgment/decree dated 28-092018, therefore, the learned Additional Advocate General has failed to point out any illegality, infirmity or misreading or non-reading of evidence committed by the learned trial court while passing the impugned judgment/decree which do not call for any interference by this Court. Thus, the instant Civil First Appeal merits no consideration and is dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs. File.