' This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, arises out of an application under Section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, filed by respondents Nos.1 and 2 against the petitioner with respect to Plot No,25, Block No,25, Changer Colony, Sheikhupura Road, Gujranwala. In the petition for eviction, it was averred that the petitioner was transferee of this plot over which he had raised construction and the respondent was in possession of the same as a tenant under him. In the written statement filed by the petitioner he denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and instead pleaded that he was in possession of the property in his occupation as its owner. He has also averred that the property transferred to respondents Nos.1 and 2 was different from that which was in his occupation. .
2. Out of the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following two issues:-
(1) Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties? OPA.
(2) Relief.
' In order to prove their case, respondents Nos.1 and 2 examined Ahmad Ali Senior Clerk Office of Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Gujranwala as AW 1 and one of the respondents appeared as AW 2. Certain documents were also produced in evidence. In rebuttal, the petitioner produced RW 1 Wazir Ali Qamar Senior Clerk, Office of Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Gujranwala, Muhammad Afzal Khan RW 2 and he himself appeared as RW 3. He, too, produced some documents in evidence.
3. On the basis of the evidence produced before it, the Rent Controller concluded that the petitioner was a tenant in respect of the premises in question under respondents Nos.1 and 2. As a consequence of this finding, the Rent Controller proceeded to direct the eviction of the respondents on 19th June, 1983. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Gujranwala, on 12th September, 1985. Learned Additional District Judge upheld the finding of the Rent Controller that relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties.
4. Mr. Muhammad Asif Ranjha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that while arriving at, the conclusion that the petitioner was in possession of the plot in question as tenant under the respondents, the Rent Controller as also the Additional District Judge have misread the record and have also failed to consider the material evidence. It was emphasized by the learned counsel that as a matter of fact, respondents Nos.1 and 2 were transferees of a plot which is in occupation of Muhammad Hanif against whom they had already obtained an order of ejectment and they had no concern or connection with the plot in dispute. In the same context it was argued that the plot in possession of the petitioner was evacuee in nature and had been transferred to him by the Settlement Department as far back as 1971. Learned counsel maintained that the Khasra No,of the two plots was different.
5. Mr. Muhammad Ahmad Bari, learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 and 2, on the other hand, has supported the judgment of the Additional District Judge and the order of the Rent Controller and has argued that the findings on a question purely of fact recorded by the Courts below are not liable to be interfered with in the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Learned counsel also referred to the statement of the Settlement Clerk Ahmad Ali AW 1, who deposed that the two Abadis, namely, Changar Colony and Jhuggi Colony, were different. In this context, reference was also made to the statement of petitioner himself as RW4.
6. From the perusal of the record as also contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is evident that the real dispute between the parties is as to the identity of the property. According to respondents Nos.1 and 2, the plot in possession of the petitioner bears No,25, Block No,25, Changar Colony while the petitioner claims the plot transferred to the respondents 1 and 2 is different. The Rent Controller as also the Additional District Judge after appraising the evidence on the record found as a fact that respondents Nos.1 and 2 have been transferred the property in possession of the petitioner, who has by operation of law, become a tenant under them. This finding does not suffer from any legal error on account of misreading of the record. It was deposed by the Record Clerk of the Settlement Department, who appeared as AW1 that Changar Colony and Jhuggi Colony were different Abadis and that the plot in dispute stood transferred to the respondents Nos.1 and 2. True enough that contrary version was stated by the other Record Clerk, who appeared as RW1, but as the two Courts have, for valid reasons, relied upon the statement of AW 1 in preference to RW 1 this Court in the exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction is not called upon to reappraise the evidence.
7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the plot of respondents Nos.1 and 2 was in possession of Muhammd Hanif and not the petitioner, cannot be accepted for the reason that in the petition for eviction filed by respondents Nos.1 and 2 against the petitioner while giving the boundaries, it has been specifically stated that a part of the property belonging to respondents Nos.1 and 2 situated on the western side was in possession of Muhammad Hanif. It thus appears that the ejectment petition filed by Muhammad Hanif related to a part of property transferred to respondents Nos.1 and 2. Another fact which needs to be taken notice of is that in his own statement appearing as P.W.4 it was admitted by Muhammad Rafiq petitioner that the plot which was transferred to him was situated in Jhuggi which was also known as Muslim Colony. Towards the end of his cross-examination, he further admitted that the number of plot was 25 C and it was situated in Changar Colony. There is thus no ground to interfere with the impugned orders which are well based.
8. The learned counsel in the last prayed that the petitioner may be permitted to establish his title by filing a suit. This request of the learned counsel is reasonable. As the dispute between the parties relates to title, it would be in the interest of justice to allow the petitioner to file a suit if he is so minded. It is also clarified that no observation made in the judgment, shall prejudice the rights of the parties before the Civil Court.
9. In view of what has been said above, the petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.