1. ' JAVID IQBAL, J.--This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 23rd November, 1988 whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed.
2. ' Briefly the facts in this case are that Muhammad Siddiq respondent managed to obtain an order from the Revenue Court for the recovery of Rs,129.69 as rent against the petitioners as sons of Dhaman. The appeal and revision filed by the petitioners were dismissed by the Collector and Additional Commissioner. The petitioners did not challenge these orders any further and thus they became final. Later on the basis of the same orders father of Muhammad Siddiq respondent namely Abdul Aziz filed an application for ejectment of the petitioners from the land under their cultivation on the ground of non-payment of produce and for improper cultivation. This was resisted by the petitioners. The application was dismissed by the Assistant Commission:, r on the ground that Abdul Aziz failed to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
3. His appeal before the Additional Commissioner was dismissed but his revision before the Member Board of Revenue succeeded. Thereupon, the present petitioners filed writ petition which has been dismissed by the High Court as stated above. Hence the present petition for leave to appeal.
4. ' Learned counsel for the petitioners attempted to argue before us that the respondents had obtained the order for the recovery through fraud and misrepresentation and that therefore no relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. His contention was that the order of the Assistant Commissioner as well as the Additional Commissioner to the effect that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties could not be proved amounted to concurrent findings of fact of the two Revenue Courts which should have not been interfered with by the Member Board of Revenue, but we do not find any substance in this argument. The petitioners are sons of Dhaman who is recorded as tenant of the respondent in the revenue record.
5. Besides that the Member Board of Revenue had held that the relationship of landlord and tenant stood established between the parties by virtue of rent degree awarded in favour of the respondent and which orders had attained finality. Furthermore, they did not file any civil suit to challenge the decree of the payment of rent passed against them. In the light of the above discussion we do not find any substance in the arguments of the learned counsel. As a result this petition is dismissed.