' This is second appeal against the order of learned District Judge, Dera Ghazi Khan, dated 12-7- 1978 by which he dismissed the appeal of Taj Din appellant by confirming the order of ejectment passed by learned Rent Controller, Dera Ghazi Khan vide order, dated 24-5-1978 by which Taj Din appellant was directed to be ejected from House No, 68 in Block No, 13, Dera Ghazi Khan City. This appeal was filed on 3-8-1978. It was placed before a learned Judge of this Court on 5-8-1978 but no one was present on behalf of the appellant. It was then re-fixed for hearing in motion on 6-8- 1978 but adjourned for a date after the vacations was fixed on 12-9-1978 but no one appeared on behalf of the appellant. It was again fixed on 16-10-1978 when the record of the trial Court was summoned and proceedings for execution were stayed meanwhile. It was then placed before me on 15-5-1985 i.e. After about 6/7 years, in motion but was adjourned for arguments for today as the record of the trial Court had not been received.
2. I have gone through the record of this case and have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length.
3. The facts, in brief, are that House No, 67 was transferred to Taj Din defandant/appellant and House No, 68 was transferred to Shakoor Ahmad plaintiff/respondent by Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Dera Ghazi Khan in the year 1959-60. It appears that there was some dispute between the parties regarding demarcation of their respective Houses. An application was filed by Mashkoor Ahmad to the Martial Law Authorities in the year 1969 which was sent to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for report. The said report was submitted on 11-6-1969 whereafter the Martial Law Authorities directed the parties to have resort in Civil Courts. Mashkoor Ahmad after notice to Taj Din filed the present ejectment application on 20-6-1977 on the ground that in spite of notices Taj Din respondent, as a statutory tenant, did not pay him the rent; that Taj Din had demolished part of the property without his permission and that he required the House in question for his personal need. Taj Din put in appearance and denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. It was stated by him in the written statement that he was allotted a bigger House bearing No, 67; that Mashkoor Ahmad was allotted smaller House bearing No, 68 and that the property in dispute was part of his House No,
67. The learned Rent Controller framed the following issues: -
(1) Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant subsists between the parties?
(2) Relief.
4. This issue was decided against Taj Din. The ejectment application was accepted and the respondent was directed to hand over vacant possession to the petitioner. Taj Din went up in appeal against the ejectment order, dated 24-5-1978. The learned District Judge confirmed the findings of the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal on 17-7-1978. Taj Din was directed to vacate the premises on or before 12-11-1978. Hence this second appeal.
5. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Rent Controller had appointed a Local Commission who submitted his report on 1-1-1978 but the same was set aside by the Rent Controller by his order, dated 24-5-1978 illegally, that both the Courts below have placed reliance on the report of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, dated 11-6-1969 submitted by him to the Martial Law Authorities and doubt having been created about the ownership of disputed premises, the ejectment petition should have been dismissed. He has placed reliance on Rehmat Ullah v. All Muhammad 1983 SCMR 1064. I have considered arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant. In this case Mashkoor Ahmad respondent examined A.W. 1 Abdul Sattar, a clerk of the Settlement Department, to prove various documents on the record of this case, Zahoor Ahmad (A.W:2) supported the case of the respondent Mashkoor Ahmad being his Special Attorney. The evidence was closed on behalf of the owner after tendering certain documents. Taj Din (P.W.1) appeared in rebuttal. He tendered in evidence two postal receipts R. 3 and R.4 and closed his evidence. In my view, there is no dispute or doubt about the ownership of the property in dispute.
Houses Nos. 67 and 68 were owned by Mst. Seeta Bai. The previous Nos. Were 38 and 39 and total area under the two Houses was ten Marlas as is clear from copy of Jamabandi A.16. The P.T.D. A.19 issued in favour of Shakoor Ahmad (Mashkoor Ahmad) does not bear full description of the property. Similarly, the transfer order R.2 in favour of Taj Din which is based on the report of one Office Assistant R.1 also does not contain full description of the property. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the bigger House was transferred to him and the smaller House was transferred to Shakoor Ahmad. I have gone through the transfer orders which are not clear in terms. The P.T.D. On behalf of Taj Din has not been placed on record of this case. I find that there are two documents from the taxation record of District Dera Ghazi Khan. These are Exhs. A.17 and A.18. According to A.17 House No, 68 has three rooms and the area under this House was 71/2 Marlas. This House was owned by Seeta Bai in Block No, 13 Ward No, 1 Dera Ghazi Khan City.
This was in possession of Taj Muhammad respondent since 1-1-1953. The document A.18 indicate House No,67 owned by Seeta Bai. It had two rooms and its area was 11 Marlas. This was also in possession of Taj Muhammad appellant. It is, therefore, clear without any ambiguity or doubt that House No,68 had a total area of 21 Marlas whereas House No,67 had 24 Marlas under it. The trouble arose because Taj Din demolished his House No,67 and then reconstructed the same after permission from the Municipal Committee. The demolition and reconstruction made the demarcation at the spot impossible. As such I am of the view that no reliance could be placed on the report of the Local Commission, dated 1-1-1978. I am, therefore, clearly of the view that House No,68 had 7i Marlas of land under it and the said House belonged to Mashkoor Ahmad plaintiff/respondent. I have gone through the impugned judgments of Courts below and find no illegality or infirmity in them. In view of this, I find no merits in this appeal which is dismissed in limine.