1. ' ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.--- This appeal by leave of the Court has arisen out of the following facts.
2. ' The dispute relates to House No,682-A/3, Delhi Road, Saddar Bazar, Lahore Cantt. The respondents brought a suit against the appellants claiming to be in adverse possession of the suit property. The suit was contested by the appellants and as many as seven issues were framed by the trial Court.
3. Both the parties led evidence in support of their respective pleas. The learned trial Court by means of order dated 9-7-1980 dismissed the suit. The respondents filed an appeal which was accepted by the Additional District Judge on 7-3-1982. The appellants challenged this order by way of revision in the High Court but the same was dismissed.
4. ' We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that an ejectment order has been passed against Mst. Anwar Begum wife of Malik Jeewan Khan who died in 1960. Agha Qasim 'Ali was a party to those proceedings but he did not allege that he was in occupation of the disputed house by way of adverse possession. The claim of the respondents in the suit was that the house was built by Malik Jeewan Khan and the respondents had inherited the property. They have become the owners by way of adverse possession since the transfer of the house. The ejectment petition was filed by the defendants against Mst. Anwar Begum and Agha Qasim Ali on 29-8-1953. The suit was decreed in favour of the defendants on 21-7-1954 but Mst. Anwar Begum continued in the suit property. The claim of Mst.
5. Anwar Begum in the ejectment proceedings was that she was residing in the house in her own right being the owner of the property. However, that contention was repelled and a decree was passed.
6. After the ejectment order was passed Mst. Anwar Begum through Agha Qasim Ali as her attorney, filed a suit for declaration against the defendants claiming that they were the owners of the house.
7. The suit was dismissed for non-prosecution on 17-7-1958 and the application for restoration of the suit was also dismissed on 5-12-1958. That order became final. Thereafter, the defendants filed a suit for possession which was dismissed by the Civil Judge. The suit was dismissed on the technical ground that legal representatives of one of the plaintiffs were not impleaded within time. Agha Qasim Ali had appeared as attorney on behalf of Mst. Anwar Begum in the ejectment proceedings and he did not plead that he was in occupation of the house by adverse possession. The suit filed by Mst. Anwar Begum was also conducted by Agha Qasim Ali as attorney. He did not file any suit claiming to be the owner of the property. The allegation against Agha Qasim Ali was that Mst.
8. Anwar Begum had sublet the premises to him. He was living at the most in the house with the permission of a tenant. He had no independent right. He was a licensee. He had no better right than Mst. Anwar Begum who was adjudged as tenant. Therefore, the rights of the parties had been determined long ago. The learned Additional District Judge made certain observations against the present respondents. It has been suggested that Jeewan Khan held the premises in adverse possession and as such the present respondents could not claim the possession of the premises in their own right during the lifetime of Jeewan Khan. It has further been observed by the Additional District Judge that 'it is thus obvious that the present respondents did not claim possession of the suit property in their own right till the decision of the application for restoration of the aforementioned suit. If Agha Qasim Ali had claimed possession in his own right he would not have instituted the suit as special attorney of Mst. Anwar Begum etc. Who claimed exclusive title in the house in question. Mst. Anwar Begum admittedly died in the year 1960 and her children did not assert adverse possession over the suit property till the death of Mst. Anwar Begum in the year 1960. Mst. Anwar Begum also did not claim adverse possession over the suit property. Now the case of the present respondents firstly is that they have inherited the property from Jeewan Khan and in the alternate they are in occupation of the house by way of adverse possession. The respondents have taken two contradictory stands. The Additional District Judge has observed that the adverse possession of the respondents started in the year 1960 after the death of Mst. Anwar Begum and the present suit was filed on 27-3-1971 i,e. Within 12 years of the death of Mst. Anwar Begum. It may also be noted that a suit for possession against the respondents was filed by Syed Ausaf Ali Shah the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants for possession of the house on 27-7-1971. This suit was dismissed as having abated on 22-1-1973. The appellants never admitted the possession of the respondents, therefore, uptill the disposal of the suit the appellants had claimed the possession of the suit property on the basis of the decree.
9. ' Learned counsel for the respondents has referred to Faizullah Khan v. Abdul Razzaq PLD 1987 SC 130 wherein it has been observed that:- "The case-law on the subject clearly establishes the principle that a decree for possession emphasises the claim of the plaintiff to be true owner and that of the defendant to be in adverse possession alleging hostile title and interest, and the decree for possession by itself has not the effect of interrupting the adverse possession once commenced. In this case the adverse possession commenced immediately after Rabi 1944 and continued uninterrupted for over twelve years, before respondent's ouster on 18-5-1958. He had, on these findings of fact, perfected his adverse possession so as to successfully claim restoration of the property even from the true owneRs, In the circusmtances, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to their costs."
10. ' The above precedent does not apply to the present case as the facts are distinguishable. After the passing of the decree of ejectment against Mst. Anwar Begum, the possession of the respondents has been interrupted even though the decree was not executed. Before the passing of the decree, the appellants had not acquired any title by way of adverse possession. Once it has been held by a competent Court that there existed relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the tenant or his successor-in-interest cannot claim better title than their predecessor-in-interest. The question of adverse possession in the circumstances of the case, does not arise in view of the decree passed against Mst. Anwar Begum in spite of the fact that the same had not been executed.
11. ' For the foregoing reasons, this appeal is allowed. The order of the learned High Court and that of the Additional District Judge are set aside, and that of the Civil Judge is restored. There would be no order as to costs.