1. ' The applicant in this case is the owner of the property bearing city Survey number 275/1, Sukkur.
2. The respondent is the tenant of the upper floor of this unit of property at the rate of Rs.80 per month. He has paid rent till 20th February, 1973. Thereafter, he stopped praying rent and became defaulter. The applicant filed an ejectment application against the respondent before the learned Rent Controller, Sukkur sometimes in February, 1974 on the grounds of default, personal need and damage caused to the property. The respondent filed the written statement and pleaded therein that the applicant had entered into an agreement of sale of this unit of property and, therefore, the relationship of landlord and tenant had disappeared. This issue came to be tried as a preliminary issue by the Rent Controller and was disposed of by his order, dated 26th of May, 1980. The Rent Controller held that the respondent was a tenant and the applicant was a landlord. As such he held that he had jurisdiction to proceed with the rent application. Evidence of the parties was recorded and an order on merits of the ejectment application was passed on 13th February, 1982.
3. The Rent Controller by this order ordered ejectment of the respondent from the premises in his possession F.R.A. 54/82 was filed against this order by the respondent before the High Court. The High Court by his order, dated 19th of May, 1983 dismissed the first rent appeal. Against this order an appeal was preferred to the Supreme Court but this effort also proved to be abortive and the Supreme Court refused to grant leave by its order, dated 12th December, 1983. Being disappointed and having reached the point of terminus in these proceedings the respondent launched parallel proceedings by filing a suit being Suit No. 33/1980 claiming a relief of specific performance of alleged agreement, of sale by the applicant in favour of the respondent. This suit was filed on 26th of January, 1980 in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Sukkur. Relief claimed was specific performance of an agreement dated 13th April, 1976. Alongwith the suit an application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. was also filed for an injunction restraining the applicant( defendant) from dispossessing or ejecting the plaintiff/respondent. The learned Civil Judge by his order, dated 30th of January, 1984 granted a temporary injunction restraining the present applicant from ejecting the respondent/plaintiff. First appeal filed before the District Judge was disposed of by the learned IV Additional District Judge by his order, dated 4th November, 1984 affirming the order of the Senior Civil Judge and dismissing the appeal. In this situation Mr. Abdul Latif Memon learned counsel for the applicant is now pitched against two concurrent findings of the two Courts below and this revision has been filed to question the validity of the two orders noted above: ' Mr. Abdul Latif Memon learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently contended that the alleged agreement is bogus and forged agreement, that it has been once scrutinized and held to be such by the learned Rent Controller, that the present suit is mala fide attempt to deprive the applicant of the fruits of the decree obtained by him in the rent proceedings. The counsel contends that not only this but he is being deprived of even the monthly rents of the premises which he was getting during the pendency of these proceedings before the Rent Controller. It is a very hard case.
4. The landlord came to the Rent Controller for seeking relief in early 1974 and after 10 years he finds himself running in a circle without any relief whatsoever and God knows how long the present proceedings would continue and whether by the time the urgent necessity of the personal need of the present applicant would continue or with passage of time would automatically finish. If this application for injunction was placed before me I have no hesitation to say that I would have surely refused injunction because in such a situation it would be very difficult for an owner of property, who is already handicapped by the provisions of special statute giving vast protection to the tenants, to ever get his property. But unfortu natley I am sitting in revisional jurisdiction and unless a ground of interference is clearly spelt out of the two concurrent judgments of the two Courts below I can hardly help the applicant.
5. ' Learned counsel for the applicant Mr. Memon has relied on a case reported in 1983 CLC 2272 (Mst.
6. Hasina Bano v. Mrs. Mumtaz Younus). In this case facts were somewhat similar and the learned Judge refused to issue any temporary injunction to the tenant in possession. As I stated earlier I am sitting'in revision jurisdiction and cannot exercise discretion which was available to the Judge who decided the case cited by Mr. Latif Memon. That case was decided in the original jurisdiction of the High Court in a suit. I have examined the two concurrent findings. Suffice it to say that the two Courts below who had the powers to examine the merits of the case and had the jurisdiction to grant or to refuse the injunction have exercise their discretion. I cannot substitute my view for the views of the Courts below. No ground for interference under section 115, C.P.C. is available to the learned counsel for the applicant. This revision is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. I may, however, observe that the suit filed on 26th January, 1980 should be expeditiously disposed of.
7. I am informed by Mr. Kadir Bux Memon learned counsel for the respondent that he has closed his side. Now it is for Mr. Latif Memon the learned counsel for the applicant to complete his evidence.. I hope that the suit is disposed of by the learned trial Court as early as possible.