' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The petitioners are the successors-in-interest of Muhammad Waris. They were in possession of a haveli in Chiniot. Bashir Ahmad, respondent No,3, filed an application for eviction against them before the Rent Controller on the ground, inter alia, that they were defaulters in the payment of rent. The petitioners resisted the application alleging that they had become owners of the haveli by adverse possession and as such they were not tenants under Bashir Ahmad. The learned Rent Controller framed an issue to the effect whether the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. Both parties led evidence and after considering the same the learned Rent Controller held that the said relationship did not exist between them; accordingly, he dismissed the application. Bashir Ahmad then filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge who reappraised the evidence and came to a contrary view. As the petitioners had not taken up the position that they had paid any rent to Bashir Ahmad, the learned Additional District Judge directed their ejectment from the haveli. The petitioners invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to call in question the legality of the order of the learned Additional District Judge but without any success.
2. The main-stay of the case of Bashir Ahmad was the rent deed which Muhammad Waris, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, had executed in his favour. The petitioners alleged that it was a forged document. After considering the evidence on record the learned Additional District Judge upheld its validity and genuineness. In the presence of this rent deed the plea that the petitioners had become owners of the haveli through adverse possession could not be accepted.
The High Court was therefore right in not interfering with the order of eviction passed by the learned Additional District Judge. The petition is dismissed.