' This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, is directed against two orders, dated 16-3-1991 passed by Ch. Iftikhar Hussain, learned Additional District Judge Multan, out of which one relates to the, dismissal of ejectment order, dated 3-5-1989 and the other relates to the dismissal of an application moved under Order 41, Rule 27 read with section 151, C.P.C.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that on 24-11-1985 Abdul Rashid son of Muhammad Ishaque landlord (hereinafter to be disclosed as respondent No,3) filed an ejectment application against his tenant Idoo (hereinafter to be disclosed as petitioner) seeking his ejectment from House No,64 Ward No,1 Railway Gate Shujabad District Multan. The respondent claimed his ownership on the basis of P.T.D.
Issued in his favour. He alleged that the petitioner had been occupying the said house and had not paid any rent to him. This application was resisted by the petitioner who raised some preliminary objections and asserted that he was not occupying the property bearing No,64, but was in possession of property bearing No,63.
3. From the divergent pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed following preliminary issues:
(1) Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties?
(2) Relief.
' In support of his stand, respondent No,3 examined A.W .1 Muhammad Ishaque, A.W.2 Muhammad Siddique and A.W.3 Bashir Ahmad. In rebuttal, the petitioner examined R. W.1 Noor-ud-Din Jahangir, R.W.2 Suleman and R.W.3 Abdul Mubeen.
4. After going through the evidence produced by the parties, the Trial Court accepted the ejectment application vide order, dated 3-5-1989.
5. The petitioner felt aggrieved of the said order and filed an appeal with respondent No, 1 During the pendency of appeal, he also filed an application under Order 41, Rule 27 read with section 151, C.P.C., for adducing additional evidence. Both the appeal and application referred above were dismissed vide separate orders of even date i,e, 16-3-1991. Hence the instant writ petition.
6. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
7. The first contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that as various preliminary objections inter alia challenging the jurisdiction of the Court as well as existence of relationship of landlord and tenant had been raised, so the lower Court was bound to frame all issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties and framing of only one issue is unwarranted by law His next contention is that from the evidence brought on record, respondent No,3 has failed to prove that the petitioner is in possession of House No,64 which is said to have been allotted to him. He contended that since the very existence of House No,64 is in dispute between the parties so it was the duty of the lower Court to direct the respondent to get " the property demarcated in the first instance and then to file the ejectment petition. The Court, it is urged, has not adopted this procedure, as such impugned order of ejectment cannot be termed a legal order. He next argued that he had challenged the very allotment of respondent No,3 and for this purpose moved an application under Order 41, Rule 27 read with section 151, C.P.C., but the same was also disallowed without sound reasoning. He contended that as per N.C.H. Form appended with his application for additional evidence, it is clear that the same was filed by one Abdur Rashid son of Khairati claiming himself to be in possession since 1947 and consequently sought its allotment. That admittedly this very property has been purchased by respondent No,3 so the stand of respondent No,3 that petitioner is occupying the suit property since partition stands belied by documentary evidence, that this aspect of the matter was not looked into by the lower Appellate Court, that as such both the impugned orders are, not sustainable in the eyes of law.
8. Conversely, the impugned orders have been supported by learned counsel for the landlord/respondent No,3. His contention is that respondent No,3 was allotted House No,64 vide P.T.D. And he has annexed its site-plan Exh.A/1 with the ejectment petition, that the location/existence of house .As per boundaries given in site-plan Exh.A/1 stands admitted even by R.W.2 Suleman, as such it stands proved even from the evidence adduced by the petitioner that property is in possession of the petitioner. He challenged the authenticity of N.C.H. Form produced along with application for additional evidence. He asserted that N.C.H. Form referred above contains an endorsement, dated 5-8-1960 to the effect that it relates to House No,63/64 which stands included in the auction and applicant was directed to file an appeal against that order.
That as per bid sheet annexed with N.C.H. Form, auction took place on 12-12-1981 and was approved on 29-3-1982, that if the auction had taken place on 12-12-1981 and approved on 29-3-1982, how a report to that auction could be made vide endorsement, dated 5-8-1960, that all these facts go to prove that N.C.H. Form is a forged document, and that Court rightly rejected the application for bringing that document on record. He further argued that even otherwise the question of authenticity of a document, being a question-of fact, cannot be gone into by invoking the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. So far- as the other objection regarding non-framing of all issues arising out of pleadings is concerned, he submitted, that as disposal of petition hinged upon the issue framed, so it was framed and there was no- need to frame other issues.
9. From the facts stated above, it is clear that Abdul Rashid respondent No,3 claims himself to be the owner of the said property on the basis of PTD, dated 29-7-1984 and further claims that petitioner is in possession of the said house. This fact stands denied by the other side. It is on the basis of this denial of the petitioner that a preliminary issue described above was framed by the Trial Court. To prove their respective stands, both parties produced evidence which has been gone into by the Trial Court as well as by the Appellate Court while passing orders, dated 3-5-1989 and 16-3-1991 respectively.
10. The main contention of the petitioner is that he is not in possession of House No,64 allotted to respondent No,3 and is in possession of House No,63. Admittedly respondent No,3 claims himself to be allottee of House No,64 and he has annexed its site-plan Exh.A/1 with his ejectment petition and has tried to prove his stand by adducing evidence. On the other hand, petitioner has tried to rebut this stand of respondent No,3 by examining P.Ws. Referred above. It is evident from the cross- examination of R.W.2 Suleman that contents of site-plan Exh.A/1 stand admitted by him. Thus, the admission of R.W.2 coupled with the evidence adduced by respondent No,3 proves that it is House No,64 which is in possession of petitioner. It is also pertinent to point out that petitioner claims that he is not in possession of House No,64 allotted to respondent No,3, but has failed to put up the site plan of his house during the last 13 years. His contention is that he is in possession of House No,63 and not House No,64. Even if his contention is accepted, then has to bring on record, the site plan of House No, 63, which he has failed to do so. This fact further proves that he is in occupation of House No, 64 allotted to respondent No, 3 and not any other house. Thus, the Courts below have rightly passed the orders, dated 3-5-1989 and 16-3-1991, regarding the ejectment of the petitioner.
11. So far as the question of disallowing additional evidence is concerned, the same has rightly been disallowed, as the very genuineness and authenticity of N.C.H. Form is not free from doubt.
12. The upshot of the above discussion is that writ petition is devoid of any force and1 the same is hereby dismissed.