1. ' This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 14-9-1989 and decree dated 20-9- 1989 passed by the IInd Additional District, Judge, Karachi East whereby dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners and affirming the judgment and decree dated 17-10-1988 passed by the VIth Senior Civil Judge, Karachi East whereby dismissing the suit of the petitioners.
2. ' The facts leading to the filing of the above revision petition are that the petitioners filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the respondents. The case of the petitioners, as set out in the plaint, was that they are owners of flats constructed on Plot No,223, J.M. Quarters, Amil Colony, Karachi. The second respondent constructed flats on the aforesaid plot. The project of multi- storeyed building was set up by the second respondent by offering Housing Scheme after getting approval plan from the competent authority consisting of ground and first floor. It is the case of the petitioners that second respondent realised huge amount by selling flats on ownership basis to the various purchasers and later sub-leases were executed in their favour. It is the further case of the petitioners that after selling the entire project of flats on the ownership basis, the second respondent had lost all interest, right, title and lien therein because sub-leases executed in favour of various owners of the flats contained a clause that the petitioners would have all rights in the flats alongwith proportionate undivided share in the said plot. It is their further case that they were surprised when they received notice from the first respondent inviting objections that second respondent had presented a plan to the Karachi Building Control Authority for raising additional two floors on the existing project. The petitioners appeared before the concerned officer of the first respondent and filed objections challenging the locus stand of second respondent. On 15-3-1986 second respondent came on existing site with building material and labourers to commence with construction of second and third floors. The petitioners filed the above suit, The respondents resisted the suit. The first respondent admitted in their written statement that the petitioners are sub-lessees. The first respondent contended that the petitioners at the time of execution of sub- leases have given consent in favour of second respondent for carrying on construction of second and third floors and for obtaining necessary approval from Karachi Building Control Authority. The first respondent contended that the petitioners have no right to challenge the action of second respondent. The first respondent also pleaded that approval for additional floors was given after completing all the formalities.
3. ' The second respondent pleaded in his written statement that the petitioners have all rights to enjoy their flats subject to terms contained in subleases, therefore, he resorted for the approval of building plan to the first respondent for raising additional construction. First respondent accordingly approved the plan, therefore, there is no justification on the part of the petitioners to cause hurdle in the way of the second respondent to accomplish their designs.
4. ' On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- "(1) Whether defendant No,1 has no power under Sindh Building Control Ordinance to approve the plan of additional construction, in favour of defendant No,2 on the suit plot?
(2) Whether approved plan is liable to cancellation and is against the law?
(3) Are the plaintiffs entitled to the relief claimed?
(4) Whether suit is barred by law ?
(5) Whether plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present suit ?
(6) What should the decree be ?
5. ' The learned Senior Civil Judge, on assessment of the evidence adduced by the parties, answered issues Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 in the negative. In that view of the matter, he dismissed the suit with costs.
6. The petitioners went in appeal before the District Judge, Karachi East which was ultimately heard by the Ilnd Additional District Judge, Karachi.
7. ' The learned Additional District Judge, on re-assessment of the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the evidence adduced by the petitioners shows that the petitioners have admitted their signatures on 'No Objection Letters'. The first respondent approved the plan. The petitioners averred in their plaint that their signatures were obtained on blank-papers under threat and subsequently signatures thus obtained were converted into `No-Objection Letters'. The Courts below came to the conclusion that the burden was not discharged by the petitioners. The learned Additional District Judge observed that there was no embargo for raising construction beyond second floor. This finding was arrived at on the basis of submission of learned counsel for the first respondent. She came to the conclusion that impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court does not call for interference. In that view of the above findings, the appeal was dismissed.
8. Mr. Abdul Aziz Khan, Advocate raised the same contentions that were urged before the first appellate Court in support of the appeal but I find that these have been rejected for proper and cogent reasons. Learned counsel for the A parties have taken me through the evidence brought on record. The petitioners averred in the plaint that the second respondent obtained their signatures on blank papers under threat and thereafter converted the same into No-Objection Letters' which were submitted alongwith the plan for additional floors. This burden was upon them. Both the Courts concurrently held that this burden was not discharged. The Courts below on assessment of the evidence on record came to the conclusion that there was no bar in the sub-leases executed by the second respondent for raising additional floors. In this situation, plea of threat cannot be held to have been proved. It is well-settled that clear and cogent evidence is required to be led in support of such plea. Thus the findings of the two Courts below adverse to the petitioners on the point of threat are clearly unexceptionable.
9. ' Mr. Abdul Hafiz submitted that at present there are eight flats and after construction of additional floors, there will be sixteen flats on the plot. As such the area of each flat would be reduced from 1/8th to 1/16th. This submission is devoid of force. Firstly there is no such restriction in the sub-lease.
10. Secondly there is no prohibition in the lease about raising additional floors. Thirdly the petitioners themselves signed the No-Objection Letters', i,e. The petitioners have no objection about raising additional floors.
11. ' Mr. Aziz Khan feebly contended that there is an embargo for raising additional floors in the vicinity of Quaid-e-Azam Mazar. This contention was rightly rejected by the learned Additional District Judge. It is well-settled legal position that this can only be resisted by the lessor, namely, Deputy Commissioner.
12. As observed earlier, both the Courts below have given a concurrent finding of fact on the question of threat and for raising additional floors. This finding of fact cannot lightly be disturbed in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. The power of High Court, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, is to look into the evidence may be with a view to determine whether the subordinate Courts have assumed the jurisdiction which they had not or declined to exercise the jurisdiction which they had or acted illegally or with material irregularity in the exercise of their jurisdiction. The revisional Court, however, will not disturb the concurrent finding of subordinate Courts or substitute its own appreciation of evidence for that of the trial Court or first appellate Court unless such conclusions of facts are based on no evidence at all or if no opportunity is given to the party to substantiate the respective contentions. If the finding of facts is based on incorrect approach of and applicability to the provisions of law, the High Court has the power to interfere and correct this mistake.
13. ' In view of these reasons, the revision is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.