Athar Minallah, C.J. Through this petition, the petitioner namely , Muhammad Naeem son of Muhamm ad Aslam (hereinafter referred to as 'Petitioner/Defendant' ) has assailed judgments and decrees, dated 08-04-2016 and 30- 01-2017, passed by the learned trial court and the learned appellate court, respectively .
2. The facts, in brief, are that Sameul son of Gulzar Masih (hereinafter referred to as 'Respondent/Plaintiff') filed a suit on 17-11-2012 seeking recovery of Rs.1.044 million. The dispute was regarding shop no.6 alongwith basement situated at plot no.8-H, Choudhry Plaza/Libra Market, Ghada Market, G-7 Markaz, Islamabad (hereinafter referred to as 'Property'). It was asserted in the plaint that the Respondent/Plaintiff had leased out the Property to one Rashid Suleman. The eviction petition filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff was allowed by the learned Rent Controller vide judgment and decree, dated 18-01-2010. The Petitioner/Defendant filed a suit seeking specific performance. The application filed by the latter under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') was dismissed on 17-11-2011 and the appeal did not succeed because it was dismissed vide order, dated 31-07-2012. The Respondent/Plaintiff filed execution petition and possession of the Property was handed over on 18- 10-2012. It was asserted by the Respondent/Plaintiff that the Petitioner/Defendant had remained in illegal possession of the Property till he was evicted pursuant to the order passed by the learned Rent Controller.
The Respondent/Plaintiff contested the recovery suit by filing written statement. Out of divergent pleadings, eight issues were framed by the learned trial court. After concluding the trial and affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties, the learned trial court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree, dated 08-04-2016. The decree was for recovery of Rs.178,264/- and related to the period from January , 2010 to October , 2012. The Petitioner/Defendant preferred an appeal and it was dismissed by the learned trial court vide judgment and decree, dated 30-01-2017.
3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner/Defendant has been heard at length. He has mainly argued that the prayer mentioned in the plaint did not refer to mesne profit. He has argued that the Petitioner/Defendant had no concern with the Respondent/Plaintif f because his tenancy agreement was with another person.
4. The learned counsel has been heard and the record perused with his able assistance.
5. The learned counsel has mainly argued that the findings of the learned trial court regarding issue no.1 are based on misreading and non-reading of eviden ce. However , the learned counsel, despit e his able assistance, could not point out any material misreading or non-reading. Moreover , based on the principle of balance of probabilities, the findings of the learned trial court do not suffer from any legal infirmity . The concurrent findings are well reasoned and in conformity with law. The Respondent/Plaintif f had successfully established that the Petitioner/Defendant had remained in illegal possession of the Property till he was evicted pursuant to order passed by the learned Rent Controller . The amount determined by the learned trial court is also reasonable.
6. For the above reasons, the petition is without merit and, therefore, accordingly dismissed.