' One Abdul Majid alongwith Muhammad Yousaf was transferred property Nos. P.506 and 506-A (previously designated as property No,44/1) New Civil Lines, Faisalabad by the Settlement Department and P.T.O. And P.T.D. Were also issued in their favour. Abthil Majid died and his legal representatives joined Muhammad Yousaf in maintaining a suit for ejectment against the petitioner on the plea that a partnership business of Silk power-looms started by them jointly with him in a portion of this property had been closed in consequence of dissolution of partnership on account of serious differences arisen between them 7/8 months before and thereby the position of the defendant as a licensee had also come to end. Manse profits for the period of his occupation were also claimed alongwith those until recovery of possession. Muhammad Yousaf died during the pendency of the suit and his legal representatives were impleaded in his stead to continue the suit. Defendant contested the suit by controverting the claim of the plaintiffs and also raised a number of technical objections. A total of eight issues, inclusive a the relief, were set down to be tried. Parties led their evidence, upon the consideration whereof trial Court upheld the title and claim of the plaintiffs into decreeing their suit on the basis of its judgment dated 7-5-1984.
2. Defendant's appeal thereagainst was assigned to a learned Additional District Judge who reappraised the evidence and upon affirming the findings of the trial Court proceeded to dismiss the appeal by his judgment dated 26-1-1986 by upholding the decree of the trial Court. He has now come up to this Court on revision.
3. After candidly conceding that title in the property stands settled in favour of the plaintiffs- respondents up to the Supreme Court, learned counsel has raised the following contentions:--
(i) that the suit in its present form was not competent and should have been maintained for dissolution or winding-up of the partnership; that, else, the petitioner is a tenant liable to be ejected in accordance with the law by a Rent Controller and the Civil Court did not have any jurisdiction to exercise over him; and
(ill) that the mother of Muhammad Yousaf who was also one of his legal heirs ought to have joined the suit upon his death and her absence renders the suit incompetent.
' After giving due consideration to these contentions I have not been able to find substance in any of them. The first contention is rendered untenable on the facts concurrently found below to the effect that a portion of the property in dispute was put to use for carrying on partnership-business and did not itself become a partnership-property so that with the termination of the project of such a business there did not remain any justification for the defendant to remain in possession of the property held by him as a mere licensee. Averments to such an effect made in paras. 3 to 5 of the plaint have been denied in the written statement with the further assertion that the power looms and the factory happen to be the private and exclusive property of the defendant and while reiterating it in para. 9 thereof, he went on to specifically assert that there has never been any partnership between him and the plaintiffs so that there did not arise any question of the dissolution thereof. He is precluded from taking up a different stand now and, hence, the contention is repelled.
As regards the alleged tenancy and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, there is no evidence with regard to the defendant's tenancy led in the suit and no indication is available about his being a person liable to fall within the purview of section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and A Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 for the suit property was indisputably transferred in favour of the plaintiffs.
Actually, the defendant-petitioner does not have even a semblance of right or justification to hold the possession and the suit against him has been rightly entertained and decided by the Civil Court under section 9 of the C.P.C. This contention also fails.
' The third objection with regard to the non-joinder of the mother of Muhammad Yousaf is not tenable either in fact or law. No title is shown to have either vested ever in such a lady or possessed by her at the time of impleadment of the legal representatives whereabout objection does not seem to have been raised at any time in the Courts below. Section 99 of the C.P.C. Forecloses such a plea after the suit has been fought out on merits which do not get affected with the absence of one or the other person through whom the petitioner does not have to be claiming some title and muchless may such an absence have affected the jurisdiction of the Court. The contention, even if it were to be found sustainable on facts, would be only inconsequential so far as the petitioner is concerned and cannot entail reversal of the decrees adverse to the petitioner passed below. The same is therefore, rejected.
4. No other point has been raised for consideration.
5. Result of the foregoing is that the concurrent decrees passed by the two Courts below are justified on the record and no interference is called for in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Hence dismissed with costs.