This R.S.A. Is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 16-1-1976 passed by the learned District Judge, Muzaffargarh, whereby he had allowed the appeal of the respondents filed against the judgment and decree, dated 26.6-1975 of the learned trial Court by which suit for ejectment of the respondents filed against the appellants was dismissed.
2. Respondents/plaintiffs being legal heirs of Fazl-e-Haque instituted a suit against Abdul Ghani successor of present appellants for his ejectment from the shop in question (detailed in the plaint).
It is asserted in the plaint that Fazal-e-Haq predecessor of respondents was owner of the shop in question which was given to Abdul Ghani (predecessor of present appellants) on rent. Since the rent was not paid for the last three years prior to the institution of the suit, therefore, suit for ejectment had been instituted. During the proceedings, Abdul Ghani expired and the present appellants being his legal heirs have been brought on the record.
3. The suit was hotly contested and it was specifically stated in the written statement that predecessor of the present appellants got the shop in question in exchange of his Shop No. 117 given to Fazal-e-Haque predecessor of respondents and there was no relationship of landlord and tenant which could justify the filing of the suit.
4. Keeping in view the pleadings of parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:--
(1) Whether the plaintiffs are the owners of the shop in dispute?
(2) Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties?
(3) Whether the defendant is the owner of the shop in dispute?
(4) If issue No.2 is proved whether the defendant has deteriorated the condition of the shop in suit?
(5) Whether the defendant is liable to be ejected?
(6) Has the suit not been properly valued for the purposes of court-fee, if so, what is the correct value and its effect?
(7) Relief.
5. The parties led evidence in support of their respective assertions. Issues Nos.1,2,4 and 5 were resolved against the respondents and Issues Nos.3 and 6 were decided against the appellants, however, suit was dismissed by learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 26-6-1975 but appeal against the same filed by respondents was allowed by the learned District Judge, vide his judgment and decree, dated 16-1-1976. Resultantly, suit of respondents was decreed.
6. The appellants have assailed the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge.
7. The learned counsel for appellants contends that learned District Judge while reversing the judgment and decree of learned trial Court had proceeded on wrong premises of law and facts; he has neither properly appreciated nor duly weighed the evidence available on the file which was sufficient to negate the stand put forth by the respondents. Adds with vehemence that learned District Judge has unnecessarily relied upon the statement of Mukhtar Ahmad Patwari P.W.1 which if minutely analysed did not support the case of respondents particularly when Rao Muhammad Akram, Inspector Taxation clearly deposed that property-tax was being paid by the appellant since 1961. It is also his case that Scheme No.7 under the Rehabilitation Laws has been introduced in the year 1966, so no question arises for the allotment of shop in question to the respondents on the basis of their possession. It is submitted that the impugned judgment of the learned District Judge is quite sketchy and does not have the force of a valid
8. On the other hand, learned counsel vehemently supports the impugned judgment and decree by submitting that the same have been passed strictly in accordance with facts.
9. I have given due consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. I have noticed that four witnesses appeared in the witness-box to support the case of respondents. P.W.1 Mukhtar Ahmad, Patwari had categorically deposed that shop in question was initially allotted to deceased Fazl-e-Haque predecessor of respondents and Exh.P.1. Is true copy of the record in this regard. Exh.P.1. Shows that shop in question was initially allotted to Fazl-e-Haque on 12-5-1951. It is not a case under Scheme No.7 introduced in the year 1966. P.W.2 Allah Diwaya had also stated in so many words that the. Shop in question was initially allotted to Fazl-e-Haque and thereafter to his son Zafar Ahmad, the respondent and father of appellants have been paying the rent. Same is the statement of P.W.3 Shamshad A.I. Lastly, Zafar respondent No.4 appeared as P.W.4 in support of his claim. The v0nesses of oral tenancy namely Allah Diwaya and Shamshad had already\appeared as P.W.2 and P.W.3 I have also noticed that the learnedtrial Court while discussing issue No.3 held that neither the predecessor of appellants nor the predecessor of respondents were owners of the shop in question. But no cross-examination has been filed by the appellant against this finding. Moreover, it has been noticed that in the written statement the defence of the appellants is that their father had obtained shop in question by giving his Shop No.117 to the predecessor of respondents. But no evidence m this regard has been brought on the file. Statement of D.W.1 Muhammad Akram Rao, Tax Inspector, District Counsil Muzaffargarh is of no avail to the appellants as receipts brought on the record were with regard to payment of tax but at the same time he had not produced the receipts books. He stated in cross-examination that it was not required to inquire about ownership of the shop in question as the tax is commercial one termed as Professional tax, strange enough, the witness produced by the appellants i.e. D.W.2 and D.W.3 had nowhere said that Abdul Ghani predecessor-in-interest of the appellants was the owner.
With regard to the payment of rent, they simply showed their ignorance.
11. I am convinced that the learned District Judge has passed the judgment and decree on a due appreciation of law and facts. He discussed each and every piece of material evidence and arrived at just and fair conclusion which cannot be termed as perverse or arbitrary. It is well-settled that the, conclusions based on evidence unless perverse or arbitrary are immune from the scrutiny in an appeal filed under section 100, C.P.C.
12. For what has been stated above, instant appeal fails and the same is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. However, appellants are given a period of four months from today to retain possession of the shop in question but they will have to deliver the vacant possession of the same to the respond is on the expiry of this period, failing which law shall take its own course.