M.S.H. QURAISHI, J.-- In an ejectment proceeding substituted by the respondent Dr. Mrs. Shirin against one Qazi Azmat Ali the petitioner applied for impleadment on the ground that he was the tenant of the respondent and that he had been regularly paying rent to her. The application was, however, dismissed on 26-8-1984 for the reason that he was not a tenant and had otherwise no locus standi to join the proceedings as a necessary party. On 27-8-1984, an ejectment order was passed in the case. The petitioner came to the High Court in appeal against both orders but the appeal was dismissed for the reason that there was no cogent or satisfactory evidence to establish that the petitioner was a tenant in respect of the premises in question.
2. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, we feel satisfied 'that no case is made out for interference with the concurrent decisions of the Courts below on a question of fact. The petition is dismissed.