In this constitutional petition, Muhammad Musa, the petitioner has called in question the judgment dated 16-6-1988, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, dismissing his revision petition against decree for recovery of Rs.9100 dated 1-1-1987 passed against him by Chairman, Conciliation Court No.47.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner in the first instant argued that the Chairman Conciliation Court could not entertain the application filed by the respondent unless there was reference to him by both the parties through agreement. I am afraid the contention has no force. According to section B (1) of Conciliation Courts Ordinance, 1961 any claim based on contract in case of first class Municipal Committee or Metropolitan Corporation could be entertained upto Rs.10,000 if it is based on contract or other documents or receipts without any agreement between the parties for referring the matter to the Conciliation Court. The claim of respondent Mst. Safia Sultana was based on rent-note dated 1-1-1986, therefore, it could be entertained by the Chiarman Conciliation Court being amount recoverable on the basis of a document or agreement.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that he was not tenant under Mst. Safia Sultana respondent No.3 as there is litigation pending before the Civil Court regarding sale made by Mst.
Wazir Begum of this property who was its original owner in favour of Dilawar Hussain her son who has also died. The suit according to learned counsel has been filed by Mst. Safia Sultana along with Meraj Din and Mst. Shahzadi Parveen. He also submitted that two ejectment applications were also pending against the present petitioner before two different learned Rent Controllers, therefore, the question of relationship of landlord and tenant was in these circumstances not beyond doubt between the present petitioner and Mst. Safia Sultana. He has placed on record the certified copies of written arguments submitted by the petitioner before the Chairman and certified copy of the said suit for cancellation of the said sale-deed in favour of Dilawar Hussain on the record in order to argue that no decree could be passed as the title of Mst. Safia Sultana was not clear. I regret, the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner have not impressed me. The petitioner did not choose to appoint his representative and participate in the proceedings before the Chairman Conciliation Court. Learned counsel also admitted that no regular written statement was filed before the Chairman by him and even no specific plea was taken by the petitioner regarding rent- note dated 1-1-1986 on the bass of which respondent Mst. Safia Sultana lodged the claim and he did not lead any evidence. Mst. Safia Sultana examined two witnesses Mst. Zeenat and Victor. The Chairman on the basis of the evidence produced before him was satisfied that he petitioner was liable to pay rent to Mst. Safia Sultana and found her to be entitled to the recovery of an amount of Rs.9100. This finding of fact has been upheld by the learned Additional District Judge in revision filed by the petitioner. The factum of existence of any dispute between rival claimants before the Civil Court and ejectment petitions in these circumstances cannot be used by the petitioner at this stage in writ jurisdiction inasmuch as he failed to defend the claim of Mst. Safia Sultana before the Chairman in a proper manner by filing written statement and by producing evidence in accordance with law. The Chairman under law was competent to decide the case on the basis of evidence produced before him. The petitioner in these circumstances has not been able to establish that there was any jurisdictional defect in the impugned orders. No mis-reading or mis- construction of the record has been pointed out affecting adversely concurrent findings of facts recorded by two authorities below. The writ petition has no merits, which is hereby dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.