Mirza Usman Baig, the petitioner/defendant, through the filing of the instant revision petition has called in question judgment and decree dated 27-7-1995, whereby the learned. Additional District Judge, Gujranwala, dismissed the petitioner's appeal and maintained the judgment and decree dated 15-4-1991 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Gujranwala through which he decreed the suit, filed by Sultan Mehmood Ali, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, for the ejectment of the petitioner.
2. Brief facts, leading to the filing of the present petition are that the said Sultan Mehmood, filed a suit for ejectment of the petitioner from the portion of disputed house and for the recovery of Rs.4,800 as rent before the Civil Judge. It was averred in the plaint that the disputed house, being an evacuee property, was transferred to Sultan Mehmood Ali, by the Settlement Department on 19- 10-1966 and the writ petition filed by the petitioner against the transfer order was dismissed, consequent thereto after the payment of total price, fixed by the Settlement Department, Permanent Transfer-- Deed was issued in favour of the predecessor---in-interest of the respondent, thus, according to the averments of the plaint, the said Sultan Mehmood Ali, became the owner of the suit property, wherein the petitioner is in possession of the 2/3 portion of the disputed house. It has been alleged in the plaint that as the petitioner refused ~to hand over the possession of the portion in his occupation, therefore, the necessity of filing the suit arose. The said suit was contested by the petitioner, inter alia, pleading that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter; that the suit is incorrectly valued for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction and the disputed property is an evacuee property, therefore, the petitioner was entitled for the service of notice under section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, which was not served.
3. Out of the divergent pleadings of the parties; the learned Civil Judge framed certain issues, recorded the documentary as well as oral evidence of both the parties and ultimately decreed the suit, against the petitioner, to the extent of the possession of the disputed house, however, so far as the recovery of Rs.4,800 as rent was concerned, the suit to that extent was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 15-4-1991. Both the parties felt aggrieved from the said decision, thus, both of them filed separate appeals, which were, however, dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge vide consolidated judgment and decree, dated 27-7-1995 and the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge was maintained. The said consolidated judgment was assailed by the petitioner by way of filing the present revision petition (Civil Revision No.1667 of 1995), while the respondents filed separate revision petition (C.R.No.2321 of 1995) challenging the same judgment, however, during the pendency of the proceedings the respondents withdrew the said revision petition and now only the present revision petition remains to be decided.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating his contentions raised before both the Courts below, has contended that the suit was not maintainable as no relationship of landlord and tenant did exist between the parties and according to the learned counsel once the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that no relationship of landlord and tenant did exist between the parties the suit should have been dismissed. He has further contended that both the Courts have misread the evidence on record and has thus committed legal error thus, both the judgments are not sustainable in law.
Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that as the relationship of landlord and tenant was denied by the petitioner, therefore, the suit for ejectment was filed which has rightly been decreed by both the Courts below after taking into consideration the evidence on record. He has added that the concurrent findings of fact are not liable to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
5. Upon the examination of the record of the case the only crucial issue, around which the entire controversy between the parties revolves, is as to whether the respondents are entitled to get the possession of the portion of the disputed house. It has been proved on record through the production of the documentary as well as oral evidence that Sultan Mehmood Ali is the owner of the disputed house, which was transferred to him by the Settlement Department, the dues of the said Department were duly paid by him and consequent thereto the permanent transfer --deed was issued in his favour. Although the petitioner agitate the said matter even up to the, level of the Apex Court of the Country, but the ownership of Sultan Mehmood Ali qua the disputed house remained intact During the course of arguments, the learnea counsel for the respondents has placed on record an uncertified copy of the order dated 21-2-1989 passed by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in Civil Petition No.283 of 1982, filed by the petitioner, against the Settlement Department and the respondents, wherein afore-enoted petition was dismissed. It would be appropriate to reproduce the portion of the aforesaid judgment which is as under:-- "We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. His sole grievance was that the case of the petitioner was not considered either by the Settlement Authorities or by the High Court.
It was submitted that the petitioner had a good case on merits and had shown sufficient cause for condonation of delay.
Learned Judge of the High Court undoubtedly did not go into merits of the case although in the end it was mentioned that even on merits the petitioner had no case. The learned Judge was, however, right in observing that the petitioner failed to satisfy the Settlement Authorities that he had been diligently prosecuting his case. This was a matter within the discretion of the Settlement Authorities as well as of the High Court. The petitioner was unable to convince either.
We, therefore, do not think that there is any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner as a result of which leave is declined. "
It flows from the above that the title/ownership of Sultan Mehmood Ali qua the disputed house was maintained even by the Honourable Supreme Court .Of Pakistan. In order to rebut the documentary evidence produced by the respondents, the petitioner has failed to bring on record any evidence to prove that he was either allotted or transferred this property by the Settlement Department or he has got any ownership rights in respect of the said property.
6. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, both the Courts have concurrently held that the relationship of landlord and tenant does not exist between the parties. Even according to the stance of the petitioner he is not the tenant either under Sultan Mehmood Ali or the present respondents. In the absence of the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant, the only remedy available to the respondent was to file a suit for possession/ejectment of the petitioner which Sultan Mehmood did file, which was decreed. Both the Courts have rightly held that the Sultan Mellmood filed a suit for ejectment and also claimed possession. I have myself perused the plaint and the available record and find that the findings of both the Courts are in consonance with the record of the case. It was prayed by Sultan Mehmood Ali in the said suit that a decree for ejectment alongwith arrears of Rs.4,800 be passed and the possession of the disputed house be ordered to be delivered to the respondents/plaintiffs. In the present circumstances, there was no other remedy available to Sultan Mehmood, except to file the suit, out of which the present revision p petition has arisen. The suit under the circumstances was maintainable and was rightly decreed by both the Courts below.
7. During the course of arguments the learned counsel for the respondents has placed on record copy of order dated 12-3-2002 passed by this Court, whereby petition (C.R. No.226 of 2002) filed by the successors-in---interest of the petitioner, was dismissed. In the said case the successors-in- interest of Mirza Usman Baig, in the year 2000, filed a suit for declaration claiming to be the owners in possession of the portion of the disputed house against the respondents, but the plaint was rejected by the learned Civil Judge, vide judgment and decree dated 28-7-2001 mainly relying upon the judgment rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan dated 21-2-1989, as noted above, which was assailed by them before the First Appellate Court but their appeal was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 11-1-2002. Revision petition, filed against the said judgment was also dismissed by this Court on 12-3-2002.
8. Although this Court is not called upon to reappraise the evidence on record in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, yet in the interest of justice, I have scanned through the evidence and find that the findings of both the Courts below are in consonance with the evidence on record. Both the Courts have rightly clinched .The factual controversies, have dealt with the matter in a threadbare manner and came to the concurrent conclusion that Sultan Mehmood Ali is the owner of the house in question and is entitled for his possession. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner have duly been taken care and dealt with by both the Courts below very aptly which are not open to exception. Both the Courts have embarked upon the controversies raised between the parties and have rightly decided the issues, thus, the findings on all the issues are hereby maintained.
9. It is settled law that the findings on questions of fact or law recorded by the Court of competent jurisdiction cannot be interfered in revisional jurisdiction unless those findings E suffer from jurisdictional defect, illegality or material irregularities. Reliance is placed on Muhammad Rafiq v.
Aamer Shahzad and others 1999 YLR 610.
10. The concurrent findings of facts were recorded by both the Courts below which are based on proper appreciation of evidence, oral and documentary, produced by the respective parties before the learned trial Court. No case of misreading and non --reading of evidence has been made out, neither any legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel even during the arguments, nor illegal exercise of jurisdiction nor failure of exercise of jurisdiction by both the Courts below has been attributed.
11. It is settled law that concurrent findings of facts, based on evidence are not liable to be interfered in the exercise of jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. Reliance is placed on Abdul Rahim and another v. Mst. Janatay Bibi and others 2000 SCM R 346; Anwar Zaman and 5 others v. Bahadur Sher and another 2000 SCM R 431; Aziz Ullah Khan and others v. Gul Muhammad Khan 2000 SCM R 1647; Altaf Hussain v. Abdul Hameed and Abdul Majeed through Legal Heirs and another 2000 SCM R 314; Haji Noor Muhammad v. Abdul Gham and 2 others 2000 SCM R 329 and Haji Muhammad Din v. Malik Muhammad Abdullah PLD 1994 Supreme Court 291.
12. The upshot of the above discussion is that the present revision petition is devoid of any merits, thus, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.