This judgment will also dispose of Writ Petition No.5337 of 1992 as common questions of law and facts have been raised in both of them and the learned counsel for the parties agree that the evidence in both the cases recorded by the trial Court in both the ejectment petitions is the same.
2. The petitioner filed an ejectment petition against respondent No.1 seeking his eviction from the property in dispute i.e., quarter No. l and in- the connected writ petition (W.P. No.5337/1992) seeking eviction of respondent No. l from quarter No. 2. The case of the petitioner was that the land underneath the property was granted to him by the State and he raised construction thereon. It was given on rent to one Tariq on whose vacation both the quarters were rented out to the respondents in both the writ petitions respectively. In support of his case the petitioner examined Abdul Aziz s/o Allah Rakha as A. W.1, Tariq Rashid son of Muhammad Rashid as A.W.2. The petitioner examined himself as his own witness as A.W.3. Copy of electricity bill, copy of property tax record, a copy of register Haqdaran and the site plan were also produced. In connection with the site plan Exh.A,I Sultan Saeed son of Hakim Mahboob-ur-Rehman was examined as A.W. 4.
3. In the written statement filed by both the respondents in both the writ petitions the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was denied. Their case was that they came into possession of the property in 1948 and the same was never rented out to them by the petitioner. There being no contract between the parties regarding tenancy, as such, their possession was not as tenant and the ejectment petition was not maintainable.
4. The learned Rent Controller through order dated 1-3-1992 after considering oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that the tenancy of the respondents in the premises in dispute under the petitioner had been established. The ejectment petition was accepted and the respondents were directed to vacate the premises. However, in appeal the learned Additional District Judge took different view after elaborate and careful appraisal of evidence and held that it was not established that the premises were rented out to the respondents by the petitioner and that they were in occupation thereof as tenants. The appeal was accepted through order dated 11-5-1992 and the ejectment petition dismissed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the lower appellate Court mis-read the record. I have examined the evidence produced by the petitioner in support of his case to establish tenancy of the respondents under him qua the premises in dispute. Admittedly there is no document to establish this plea. Abdul Aziz A.W.1 stated that the petitioner was owner of the property since 20/22 years and his statement was recorded on 28-7-1990, therefore, if the period of 22 years is calculated from the said date, the petitioner according to him became owner of the property in 1968. Learned counsel for the petitioner frankly admitted that the grant of this land was made to the petitioner according to the petitioner's own case in 1954. According to the petitioner the respondents failed to make payment of monthly rent after November, 1988. He was not making statement on the basis of his own knowledge. He admitted that no rent deed was executed.
According to his statement Tariq Rashid remained in the premises as tenant prior to the respondents for a period of ten years. According to him he remained in possession of both the quarters as tenant of the petitioner till b/7 years before i.e., up to 1987. He admitted that he was not issued any receipt 'for the payment of rent and the rent-deed was also not executed. He stated that during the period for which he remained in occupation the officer from Taxation Department came and inquired about him and his name was entered in the record. He was unable to tell as to who was the person in occupation of third quarter. He stated that he did not know the respondents.
When questioned he stated that he did not know whether the respondents were in occupation of the premises since 1948 and that they had raised the construction from their own pocket. The learned lower appellate Court after considering this evidence raised an inference that the evidence produced by the petitioner to establish relationship of landlord and tenant did not inspire confidence and the same was not sufficient to prove the same. No misreading or misconstruction of the record or the evidence has been pointed out. There is no reason as to why for full 10 years if Tariq Rashid remained in the premises no receipt whatsoever was issued for the payment of rent to him and that no rent note was, got executed from the respondents when the premises were rented out to them as alleged by the petitioner. It was rightly pointed out by the learned lower appellate Court that no evidence was produced to prove from the taxation record that Tariq Rashid A.W.2 was ever in possession of the property, for, if he had been in possession for 10 years he would have been recorded as one of the occupants though according to him the Taxation Department surveyed the property. No evidence was also produced to prove entry in the taxation record as regards occupation of the respondents and had they been inducted in the premises as tenants on the monthly rent there was no reason for not getting their names recorded in the taxation record.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner wants this Court to re-appraise the evidence and the inferences legitimately drawn by the lower appellate Court after appraisal of evidence of the petitioner which was not believed should be reversed.
7. I am afraid it is not possible in Constitutional jurisdiction. Since no misreading or misconstruction of the evidence has been pointed out, therefore, the judgments impugned in both the writ petitions do not suffer from .Any illegality or jurisdiction defect. The petitioner has not been able to establish relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the respondents qua the property in dispute, therefore, it is open to him to file a regular civil suit for recovery of possession of the same based on title if any. If the suit is filed the disposal of the same shall be expedited and the same shall be decided on its own merits in accordance with law after considering the evidence produced by the parties uninfluenced by any finding recorded in the impugned judgments and this judgment on the question of tenancy.
8. For the foregoing reasons the writ petitions have no force which are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.