' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.---The petitioner in both the petitions seeks leave to appeal against a single judgment dated 26-4-2002 passed by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan in Second Appeal from Orders Nos.23 and 24 of 2001.
2. The respondent in each case filed separate application under section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 being owner/landlord of the workshop in dispute for the eviction of the petitioner on the ground of default in: payment of rent and causing damage to the same. The Rent Controller framed as many as four issues. The application of the respondent in each case was allowed by the Rent Controller by order dated 2-3-2000. The separate appeals of the petitioner were dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Multan by order dated 12-10-2001. The petitioner filed Second Appeal from Orders Nos.23 and 24 of 2001 before the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench which were dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 26-4-2002. Hence these petitions for leave to appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the property in dispute was evacuee which was occupied by the petitioner immediately after the partition of the Sub-Continent. The relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was not established from the evidence. The Rent Controller was required'to refer the respondent in each ease to get the determination of the title over the disputed property by the Civil Court. The tenancy agreement dated 1-2-1989 was a forged and fabricated document which had not been executed by the petitioner in favour of each respondent.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. All the forums below recorded concurrent findings of fact that the respondent in each case had discharged the onus of pivotal Issue No,3 regarding the relationship of the landlord and the tenant between the parties. The rent deed dated 10-2-1989 (Exh.A/1) had been duly proved by producing its scribe and marginal witnesses whose statements were found to be unimpeachable, coherent and confidence-inspiring.
The learned counsel failed to point out any misreading or non-reading of any material piece of evidence. The High Court justifiably took the view that the petitioner had not made any request before the Rent Controller for cbmparison of the thumb-impression of the petitioner by an expert.
The findings of fact recorded by the Lahore High Court do not suffer from any infirmity. These are not fit cases for grant of leave to appeal.
5. These petitions have no merit and the same are dismissed accordingly.