' Mazhar Ali, the respondent filed suit for ejectment against the petitioners in the Court of learned Civil judge, Tangi, which was decreed vide judgment and decree, dated 28-4-1998. Being aggrieved of the said judgment and decree, the petitioners/defendants filed Appeal No,28/13 which too was dismissed vide judgment and decree, dated 9-2-1999. The petitioners/defendants have now moved this Court against the judgments and decrees of the Courts below through revision petition in hand.
2. Mr. Mir Muhammad, Advocate, argued that the predecessor of the petitioners was owner of the suit property on the basis of deed, dated 5-1-1898 Exh.D.W.1/2. The petitioners were not tenant under the respondent and though issue was framed as to whether there existed relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties but the respondent/plaintiff did not lead any evidence to prove the said issue, therefore, findings of the Courts below are not based on proper appreciation of evidence and warrant interference.
3. On the other hand Mr. Gul Sadber Khan, Advocate the learned counsel appearing on pre- admission notice for the respondents argued that respondent/plaintiff was owner and landlord of the property which is situated in red line of the village and the respondent/plaintiff through reliable evidence has proved that the petitioners were tenant under the respondent and both the Courts below while properly appreciating the evidence have passed the impugned judgment and decrees which need no interference.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Noor Ahmad was shown as one of the owners in the propriety body of the village. He was survived of two sons namely Baz Gul and Khan Gul. Khan Gul was further survived by Hasham Khan and Hamid Gul. Dilawar is the father of Mazhar Ali respondent. Name of Noor Ahmad finds mention in `Aks Shajara Nasab Malikan Bandobasti' Exh.P.W.1/3. Mutation No,1534 was attested on 21-8-1962 in favour of Dilawar Khan which finds mention in the Fard Jamabandi for years 1957-58 and 69-70.
6. In order to prove the 'relationship of landlord and tenant, Abbas Khan son of Ali Akbar was examined as P.W.2, who stated that he had collected Khakshora, the Village Customary Rent, 15 years back on behalf of respondent/plaintiff. Mir Alam was examined as P.W.3 who stated that he knew the parties and used to collect Khakshora on behalf of respondent/ plaintiff from the petitioners/defendants. Similarly Qalandar (P.W.4) and Nasrullah (P.W.5) have also stated that the petitioners/ defendants were tenant on payment of Khakshora, the Village Customary Rent, under the respondent/plaintiff.
7. The predecessor of respondent/plaintiff, as per Patwari Halo and `Aks Shajra Nasab Malikan Bandobasti' Exh.P.W.1/3 is from the propriety body of the village. The house in dispute is situated in 1(hasra No,817 which is Abadi Deh, though the petitioner/defendant claimed to have purchased the house in dispute on the basis of deed, dated 5-1-1998 Exh.D.W.1/2 but the perusal of the record shows that the vendor Ahmad son of Muhammad from whom the petitioners/defendants claimed to have purchased the property has not been shown in the propriety body of the village. The petitioners/ defendants have failed to make a case as how they became the owners of the said property. No evidence worth credence/reliance was produced to prove the deed Exh.D.W.1/2, whereas the respondent/plaintiff not only successfully proved the ownership through Revenue Record but also proved that the petitioners/defendants were his tenant in the house in dispute on payment of Khakshora, the Village Customary Rent.
8. Keeping in view the above mentioned evidence, the Courts below have rightly passed decrees, in favour of respondents/plaintiffs and the learned counsel representing the petitioner has not been able to point out any misreading or non-reading of evidence, illegality, material irregularity or misexercise or non-exercise of jurisdiction vested in the Courts below. I, therefore, do not feel inclined to interfere into the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. Resultantly the revision petition in hand is dismissed in limine.