' Facts necessary for the disposal of this constitutional petition, briefly stated, are that Mst. Syeda Mahfooza Begum respondent No.1 brought an application for ejectment of the petitioner from the house situated in Ashraf Street, near Madina Masjid, Narowal bounded as follows:- ' North= House of Muhammad Aslam ' South= Cali Shareh-e-Aam ' East= House of Syed Munir Hussain Shah petitioner. West= House of Abdul Hamid ' It was claimed by the respondent that her sister Mst. Naseeban Bibi was the original owner of this house and the petitioner was a tenant under her. After the death of Naseeban Bibi, the house devolved on the respondent and she gave a notice to the petitioner on 10-12-1977 which he had received but gave no reply thereto. Ejectment of the petitioner was sought on the ground, interalia, that he had not paid the rent for 9 months and that the respondent required the premises for reconstruction and for her personal use. It was also alleged that the petitioner had damaged the property in dispute and had made unauthorised changes therein.
2. Petitioner resisted the ejectment petition mainly on the ground that the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties. His plea was that he himself was the owner of the property in dispute. His father had purchased the vacant site through a sale-deed in the year 1941 and he had himself built a room, a kitchen and a latrine thereon.
3. In view of the pleadings of the parties, following preliminary issue was framed:- "Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties."
4. Both the parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions. Respondent produced Arshad Ali, a stepson of her sister ' Mst. Naseeban Bibi AW1, Kazim Ali AW-2, Muhammad All Shah AW-3 and her attorney Karar Hussain AW-4. She also tendered in evidence documents Exhs. A/1 to A/6 which comprised site- plan Exh. A/1, a registered sale-deed Exh. A/2, copy of the notice Exh. A/4, A/D receipt Exh. A/5 and postal receipt Exh. A/6. Petitioner, on the other hand, produced three witnesses Muhammad Siddique RW-1, Akbar RW-2, Nazar RW-3 and examined himself as RW-4 and produced a copy of mutation Exh. R/I.
5. Learned Rent Controller, after considering the evidence led by the parties decided the issue in favour of the respondent holding that the petitioner has been paying the rent to Naseeban Bibi and was a tenant under her in the property in dispute. As the petitioner had denied the relationship of landlord and tenant, learned Rent Controller ordered his ejectment by order, dated 21-10-1978.
6. Petitioner preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order of ejectment. Learned District Judge, Sialkot who heard the appeal took the view that the oral evidence adduced by the parites "is not of much value". As regards documentary evidence, learned District Judge noticed that the description of the boundaries of the house in dispute given in para. No.1 of the eviction petition was different from the one given in the site plan Exh. A/I. He, therefore, observed that it could not be said with certainty that "the site-plan in question relates to the same house which has been described in the petition and from which the ejectment of the appellant is sought by the respondent."
' It was further noted by the learned District Judge that as per copy of the mutation Exh. R/I produced by the petitioner, his father had purchased 8 Marlas of land out of Khasra Nos.
8087/5526/3/4/1925-26 vide registered sale-deed, dated 11-3-1941. On the other hand, according to the registered sale-deed Exh. P/2 produced by the respondent, her predecessor-in-interest Mst.
Naseeban Bibi had purchased 8 Marlas of land in the same Khasra number on 2-6-1941. It was, therefore, observed by the learned District Judge "it is not clear from the record if the appellant is in possession of the land which was purchased by his father in March, 1941 or is in possession of the land which had been purchased by Mst. Naseeban Bibi vide registered sale-deed, dated 2-6-1941".
According to the learned District Judge, there was not sufficient evidence on the record to arrive at the correct conclusion with regard to the ownership of the house in dispute. Petitioner's appeal was accordingly accepted by order, dated 27-2-1980 and the case was remanded to learned Rent Controller with the direction that "a Commission preferably a retired Revenue Officer, be appointed to see if the appellant was in possession of the house which was purchased by his father or he is occupying the house which was purchased by Mst. Naseeban, predecessor-in-interest of the respondent. The Commission should also prepare the correct site-plan of the house." It was further observed by the learned District Judge that the Rent Controller shall decide the preliminary issue after affording an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence afresh in the petition.
7. After the remand, learned Rent Controller appointed NaibTehsildar, Narowal as a Local Commissioner who submitted his report on 20-9-1980 stating that the house in dispute in possession of the petitioner was situated in Khasra numbers 8314/1925/1926 which was not purchased either by the petitioner's father or by Mst. Naseeban Bibi. Respondent preferred objections to the report on 23-12-1980 and the petitioner filed reply to the objections on 21-3-1981.
Thereafter, case was fixed, in the first instance, for arguments but on 17-5-1981, it was adjourned to 30-9-1981 for further evidence of the parties as directed in the remand order. On 30-9-1981 and, then on 16-12-1981, the case was adjourned at the request of the petitioner. On 15-2-1982 which was the date fixed for evidence, case was again adjourned in the presence of the counsel for the parties to 27-2-1982 for arguments on the objections to the report of the Local Commissioner. On the last mentioned date, arguments were heard and the respondent was ordered to produce all the relevant documents regarding the house in dispute on 4-4-1982. After two or three adjournments, respondent produced some documents on 26-6-1982, when the petitioner's counsel requested for adjournment to produce the documents. Case was accordingly adjourned to 14-7- 1982 but on that date, petitioner's counsel stated that he did not want to produce any document.
Case was, therefore, adjourned to 8-9-1982 for arguments on the report of the Local Commissioner.
Arguments were actually heard on 20-10-1982 and written arguments were placed on record on 6- 12-1982. Learned Rent Controller passed order on 22-11-1982 setting aside the report of the Local Commission on the ground, inter alia, that the "Commission has not given reasons for his conclusions." It was also observed that the Commission gave his report on the basis of the revenue record of 1935-36 without taking into account the subsequent record and without considering that the petitioner's father as also Mst. Naseeban Bibi had got other plots in exchange for the ones which they had purchased. Note was also taken of the fact that the report that the house in possession of the petitioner was not owned by either of the parties was even against the position taken by the petitioner himself. By the same order, learned Rent Controller also decided the issue of relationship of landlord and tenant against the petitioner. Reliance was placed on a money order coupon (Mark 'A') whereby the petitioner was shown to have remitted the rent to Mst. Naseeban Bibi. The coupon (Mark 'A') was found to bear the signatures of the petitioner. It was also noticed that according to the evidence which was not controverted, Mst. Mahfoozan Begum respondent was the sole heir of respondent Mst. Naseeban Bibi and that she had served a notice on the petitioner regarding the change of ownership by virtue of inheritance.
' With the aforesaid findings/observations, learned Rent Controller by order, dated 22-11-1982 accepted the eviction petition and ordered the ejectment of the petitioner from the house in dispute.
8. Petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Addl. District Judge vide judgment, dated 17-6-1984. Learned Addl. District Judge upheld the findings of the learned Rent Controller regarding the report of the Local commission as also on the issue of relationship of landlord and tenant. Learned Addl. District Judge observed, inter alia, that the petitioner was served with a notice (Exh. P.4) wherein it was stated that he was a tenant under Mst. Naseeban Bibi and was required to pay rent to the respondent but the petitioner took no exception to the position stated in the notice.
9. Petitioner has now filed the present constitutional petition to challenge the aforementioned order of his eviction from the house in dispute.
10. Learned counsel appearing is support of this petition assailed the validity of the impugned orders mainly on the ground that in the post-remand proceedings, parties were not allowed opportunity to lead fresh evidence as was directed by the learned District Judge in his remand order. This submission is clearly against the record. As noted above, case was adjourned thrice from 17-5-1981 to 15-2-1982 for further evidence of the parties with particular reference to the order of remand passed by the learned District Judge but no evidence was led. On 15-2-1982 parties, counsel were present and the case was adjourned to 27-2-1982 for arguments on the report of the Local commission but they did not ask for any further adjournment for evidence. On the adjourned date, viz. 27-2-1982, arguments were heard evidently on the report of the,Local commission and the case was adjourned for production of documents. Respondent is shown to have produced some documents on 26-6-1982 but the petitioner, despite the opportunity given to him, did not produce any document and his counsel made a categorical statement on 14-7-1982 that he did not want to produce any document.
' The aforementioned resume of the proceeding shows that the petitioner had sufficient opportunity to produce the evidence but he A failed to avail it. In the circumstances, his complaint of want of opportunity is without any substance.
11. It was next submitted by the learned counsel that after the remand, learned Rent Controller passed the order of ejectment on the same evidence which the learned District Judge had in the first round held to be insufficient and, therefore, remanded the case. I find no merit in this contention either. The learned District Judge had only observed in his order, dated 27-2-1980 that oral evidence led by the parties was not of much value and finding that the location of the house in dispute as given in the site plan (Exh. A/1) was different from the one mentioned in the ejectment petition remanded the case to the Rent Controller for finding out through a Local Commission whether the house in dispute in possession of the petitioner was situate on the plot purchased by his father or on the plot purchased by Mst. Naseeban Bibi. Local Commission appointed by the learned counsel submitted a report on the basis of the record of 1935-36 that the plot on which the house in dispute was situated belonged to none of the parties. This report was turned down by the learned Courts below for very good reasons. It was of no avail to the petitioner either as it contradicted even his stand. Petitioner also led no further evidence to substantiate his plea.
Learned Rent Controller was, therefore, left with no alternative but to decide the case on the basis of the evidence already available on the record and the petitioner cannot legitimately make any grievance on that account. It is, however, significant that the learned Courts below in deciding the issue of relationship of landlord and tenant have mainly relied upon the documentary evidence which was not considered earlier by the learned District Judge. Learned Rent Controller based his finding on consideration of money order coupon (Mark 'A') through which the petitioner had sent the rent to Mst. Naseeban. Reliance was also placed both by the Rent Controller and the learned Addl. District Judge on the notice (Exh. A-4) which the respondent had served on the petitioner. This notice was not replied to by the petitioner which fact was also taken to have proved the petitioner's tenancy under the respondent. This shows that the two learned Courts duly appraised the relevant material on the record and came to the conclusion that the petitioner was a tenant under the respondent. Thus, the issue of relationship of landlord and tenant which is one of fact stands concluded by the concurrent findings recorded by the two Courts after due appraisal of the evidence. Law is very well-settled that the concurrent findings on a question of fact recorded by Tribunals of exclusive jurisdiction cannot be disturbed in writ jurisdiction unless based on no evidence. In the instant case, findings are duly supported by the material on the record. However, even if the findings be erroneous or it may be possible to come a different conclusion, that does not render the impugned order without jurisdiction so as to attract interference in extra ordinary constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.
11-A. Before concluding, I would like to observe that the findings of the learned Courts below on the issue of relationship of landlord and tenant shall not preclude the petitioner from agitating the question of title in a civil Court.
12. In view of the foregoing discussion, I find no illegality in the impugned orders with the result that this petition fails and the same is dismissed but there shall be no order as to costs.