' MUHAMMAD ZAFARULLAH, J.--The petitioner and Muhammad lqbal, respondent No.1 herein contested election for the special interest seat of peasants of Zilla Council, Lahore. As a result of poll held on 29-10-1983, the petitioner secured six votes while four votes were polled in favour of respondent No.1. The petitioner was thus declared elected and notified as a returned candidate.
2. Respondent No.1 filed an election petition challenging the election of the petitioner contending that the petitioner was not a peasant as he owned more than four acres of land and that result of election of some of Muslim seats as also of non-Muslim seats was not yet declared, therefore, election to the special interest seat could not, legally, be held.
3. The petitioner resisted the election petition and controverted both the contentions. During the course of hearing of election petition, respondent No.1 did not press his second contention and confined only to the plea that the petitioner was not a peasant and, therefore, not qualified to contest the election of the peasant seat.
4. The learned Election Tribunal (District Judge, Lahore) after hearing the parties and taking into consideration the evidence produced by them, found that the petitioner, was in fact, not a peasant.
He, consequently, accepted the election petition, un-seated the petitioner and declared respondent No.1 to have been duly elected to the seat in question vide his order dated 26-9-1984.
5. Through the present Constitutional Petition, the petitioner has assailed the aforesaid order passed by the learned Election Tribunal maintaining that respondent No.1 could not have been declared elected to the seat in question, and that the Tribunal should have directed re-election.
The petitioner has not challenged the finding of the Tribunal to the effect that he was not a peasant.
6. It has been argued, on behalf of the petitioner, that since respondent No.1 himself in his election petition had contended that election to the peasant seat could not, lawfully, be held because the result of some of Muslim and non-Muslim seats had not yet been declared by that time, therefore, he could not ask for being declared as elected as a result of such unlawful election. This plea is without any substance because, as already stated above, respondent No.1 dropped this plea before the Tribunal and it was thus decided against him. Admittedly, there were only two candidates viz. the petitioner and respondent No.1, who contested election to the peasant seat. The petitioner was no qualified to contest election for that seat as has been held by the Tribunal.
Needless to add that this finding has not been challenged by the petitioner. Thus respondent No.1 alone was left as a candidate for that seat and thereby was entitled to be declared to have been elected.
7. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this Constitutional Petition which is dismissed in limine.
Writ refused.