1. ' S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by the petitioner against the order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpinid Bench, dated 18-12-1988 whereby, civil revision against the order of the District Judge dated 4-11-1986, was dismissed.
2. ' Briefly, the facts are that one house and four shops situate in Mauza Kharakka, Tehsil Jhelum, being evacuee property were transferred to one Syed Haider Shah Ghalib, a displaced person, under the Settlement Scheme No, VII and P.T.O. Thereto was issued in his name on 12-3-1966. He sold the house and shops excluding Shop No, 172/1-2 to respondents No,1-3 for a sale consideration of Rs, 50,000, through a registered sale-deed on 29-2-1972. The purchasers/respondents sued Nawab Khan defendant/petitioner, who was a tenant in the Shop No, 170 for the recovery of the arrears of rent amounting to Rs, 750 and also for his ejectment from the said shop, before the Civil Judge. The rent suit after contest by the defendant/petitioner was decreed on 12-6-1976 and the ejectment suit on 31-10-1978, by the learned Civil Judge, in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents.
3. ' Petitioner filed two appeals before the District Judge who accepted both the appeals on 20-5- 1979 and the cases were remanded before the trial Court for fresh decision in accordance with the additional issues framed by the defendant/petitioner. On 27-2-1980 the plaintiffs/respondents withdrew the suits from the trial Court. On 17-3-1980 the respondents again sued the petitioner for the recovery of possession of the shop in dispute. The suit was decreed on 7-4-1984 and appeal thereof before the District Judge was dismissed on 4-11-1986. Civil Revision of the petitioner before the High Court was also dismissed in limine on 16-2-1987.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through record of the case.
5. We have observed that in the first suit the question of tenancy was involved which was withdrawn by the respondents while in his fresh suit the question of ownership and possession was asked for which on the face of it was a suit with two different causes of action. Thus in our opinion the fresh suit was quite competent according to the cause of action and version in the plaint. Under the circumstances, we do not consider it a fit case for any interference. Consequenly, this petition has no merit which is accordingly dismissed.