ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.-This appeal by leave of the court is directed against the judgment of the High Court dated 7-11-1987.
2. The facts briefly stated are that the appellant filed a suit for declaration and injunction claiming to have constructed a shop on Khasra No.375/1, measuring 129-1/2 sq.Ft. On Masjid Road, Naushki, and the same is in his possession for the last 20 years. But the respondent got this land allotted from the Town Committee, Naushki, illegally. The suit on contest was dismissed by the trial Court.
The appellant's appeal before the District Judge and his Revision Petition before the High Court were dismissed by the respective Courts.
3. According to the appellant, the land underneath the shop was not allotted to the respondent No.2 but he started realising rent from the appellant through misrepresentation. The case of the respondent was that the land was allotted to his father Ganga Ram and the appellant was inducted as tenant in 1957. He was paying rent at the rate of Rs.15 per month to his father. After the death of Ganga Ram, the appellant started paying rent to the respondent since 20-10-1979 and also executed a lease deed in his favour.
4. The admitted position is that the land underneath the shop is owned by the Town Committee Naushki. It was leased out to the respondent. The appellant's claim for relief in the suit was that he was entitled to the transfer of the land on the basis of long possession. The accepted feature of the case is that the appellant was paying rent to Ganga Ram and after his death to the respondent without any objection or protest. The appellant is in possession of the shop as tenant of the respondent. He had no other possessory title.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant occupied the land not as trespasser and he is licensee of the respondent. This contention is factually and legally unsound.
The appellant, according to his statement, is not entitled to any declaration or equitable relief. The appellant is estopped to challenge the title of his landlord. In Hafizullah Khan v. Govt. Of Pakistan (1975 SCM R 211), it has been held as under :- "The petitioner admits that he entered the property with the permission of Bhandari and paid rent to him or to his Attorney at the rate of Rs.18 p.m. In these circumstances, the petitioner did not have a prima facie case in view of the doctrine of estoppel contained in section 116 of the Evidence Act."
6. The appellant has no legal character which has been infringed. There are concurrent findings of all the Courts against the appellant. This appeal has no merit which is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.