' RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.---By this judgment we propose to dispose of the above two petitions as common questions of fact and law relating to same property are involved between the parties.
2. In C.P.L.A. No,728 of 1999 the facts are that the petitioner filed a suit for specific performance and injunction in respect of C.S. Nos.1033 and 1034 Ward "A", Mohallah Gharibabad, Nawabshah on the averments that respondent No, 1 Faiz Muhammad through an agreement of sale dated 1-9-1977 had transferred his right, interest and title in her favour for an agreed amount of Rs,7,000 of which Rs,4,000 were paid on the date of agreement while the balance of Rs,3,000 was payable at the time of registration of sale-deed. It was her case that in pursuance of the agreement of sale respondent No,1 transferred the possession of the property through her general attorney which was protected by section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. She further averred that she was always ready and willing to perform her part contract but the respondent No,1 did not accept the balance amount and failed to execute the registered sale-deed in her favour, hence the suit.
3. Respondent No,1 resisted the suit and claimed that he had sold out the property in suit alongwith City Survey Nos.1031 and 1032 to respondent No,2 through registered conveyance deed dated 22-1- 1978. He denied the execution of agreement of sale in favour of the petitioner or the receipt of advance money or transfer of possession. It was urged that the petitioner's brother-in-law Muhammad Bux Sial was instrumental in getting the forged agreement of sale with false attestation by set-up witnesses:
4. On his part respondent No,2 who appears to be joined subsequently after the disclosure by respondent No,1 about sale of property in his favour also seriously contested the claim of the petitioner. The plea taken by him was in consonance with the stand taken by respondent No,1. He stated that petitioner was occupying the premises Hearing C.S. No, 1034 (979 sq.Ft.) as tenant of respondent who after selling out the property to him was no longer the owner and landlord thereof.
5. After settlement of issues and assessment of evidence of the parties learned Senior Civil Judge, Nawabshah through a lengthy judgment dismissed the suit filed by the petitioner. Civil Appeal No,32 of 1991 preferred by the petitioner met the same fate as also the civil revision before the Circuit Court, Hyderabad of the High Court of Sindh.
6. In connected C.P.L.A. NO.729 of 1999 the facts are that respondent Fazal Hussain filed an ejectment application against the petitioner on the grounds of default in payment of rent and requirement of demised premises in good faith for his personal bona fide use and for the use of his family in respect of Property C.S. A/1034 situated in Mohallah Gharibabad, Nawabshah. This petition was also resisted on the averment that the petitioner was in occupation of property bearing Nos.A/1033 and 1034 let out to her on rent by the previous owner i.e, Faiz Muhammad. She pleaded execution of agreement of sale dated 1-9-1977 for transfer of property in her favour and institution of suit for specific performance of contract against the said Faiz Muhammad. On these submissions she denied the default as well as personal bona fide requirement of the respondent.
On consideration of evidence on record learned Rent Controller, by his judgment dated 10-3-1987, directed ejectment of the petitioner from the demised premises. She impugned the eviction order in F.R.A. No,105 of 1987 before the Circuit Court, Hyderabad of Sindh High Court which came to be dismissed by a separate judgment announced on 4-11-1999.
' It is as against the High Court judgments rendered in civil revision as well as F.R.A. That the present petitions for leave to appeal were filed.
8. Learned Advocate-on-Record appearing in support of these petitions firstly contended that the learned Senior Civil Judge failed to settle the issues in the suit for specific performance filed by the petitioner and that he had discussed the evidence of the parties in one go, therefore, the judgment and decree passed by him and upheld in civil appeal as well as civil revision suffered from inherent defect and legal infirmities. Learned Advocate-onRecord was confronted with the judgment rendered by the Senior Civil Judge which very clearly reflected as many as seven issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties but instead of realizing the impact of his misstatement learned Advocate-on-Record proceeded to argue that by deciding Issues Nos.1 to 4 and 6 together Trial Court flagrantly violated the provisions contained in Order XXI, Rule 31, C.P.C.
9. We are least impressed by both the contentions of the learned Advocate-on-Record, learned Senior Civil Judge though discussed interconnected issues arising in the suit between the parties from same set of evidence jointly has recorded valid and cogent reasons for findings on each issue, without causing any prejudice to the petitioner. In any event joint discussion of the inter- connected issues has not occasioned any miscarriage of justice vitiating the ultimate decision.
Likewise the learned first Appellate Court has dealt with all the issues of fact as well as law and arrived at a correct conclusion that respondent No,1 having acquired right, interest and title to the property in suit through a valid and lawful registered converyance deed there was hardly any occasion for the execution of any agreement of sale which was not proved at the trial.
10. In civil revision learned High Court concurred with the findings of fact and did not disturb the verdict and rightly so since the findings arrived at do not suffer from perverse reading of evidence of fallacious interpretation of the points involved. In fact the High Court has followed the well- settled principles relating to power of the High Court in revisional jurisdiction and cited a number of decided cases by this Court from time to time. Learned High Court summed up the discussion in the concluding paragraph of the judgment which may be reproduced for the sake of advantage and proper understanding: "24. On thorough examination of all the ambient circumstances of the case and the reasoning given by the trial Court and the first Appellate Court I am convinced that neither there is misreading of the evidence nor the findings of the Courts below are perverse. The applicant's own case is full of infirmities and she failed to establish her case. The concurrent finding of the Courts below that the alleged agreement for sale has not been executed by Faiz Muhammad Magsi in favour of applicant and as such the applicant is not entitled to relief of specific performance does not warrant interference. It could not be established that the Courts below exercised jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. The revision application is without merits and is, therefore, dismissed.
' There has been long litigation between the parties, hence there would be no order as to costs."
11. On a careful consideration of the points involved in the petition dealt with by the learned High Court in a well-reasoned and elaborate judgment we do not find any merit in C.P.L.A. No,728-K of 1999 which is accordingly dismissed. Since the petitioner has not been found to be the owner of the property in question her ejectment, therefrom in the proceedings under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 is perfectly justified and is not capable of any interference. Consequently connected C.P.L.A. No, 729-K of 1999 also stands dismissed. Leave to appeal is, thus, refused in both the Petitions.