2016P4066 (PLP)

ABDUL LATIF KAHN, J.

Through the instant revision petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and decree dated 13.03.2006 passed by learned Additional District Judge-VIII, Mardan, whereby appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 11.10.2005 of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mardan was dismissed.

2. A perusal of record reveals that respondent, Haji Said Mehmood, filed a suit for recovery of amount, being owner of the house against the defendant claiming him to be as tenant. The defendant has denied relationship of landlord and tenant however has not claimed ownership of the suit house, rather claimed possession since 70 years. Admittedly, the suit house is situated in Abadi-deh, wherein the father of the petitioner, Hazrat Jee, was inducted into possession through a rent deed EX.PW2/1 executed on 18.09.1974, between the plaintiff and father of the petitioner/defendant. The scribe of the deed was examined as PW

2. Marginal witnesses of the deed were also produced as PW4 and PW5 and as such the execution of deed has been proved in terms of Article 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984. The plaintiff appeared as PW3, reiterated his stance taken in the plaint. In cross-examination petitioner/defendant has admitted the execution of rent deed between the father of the petitioner/defendant and the plaintiff. The trend of cross-examination, which amounts to be the statement of the parties, shows that the execution of deed was admitted by the petitioner. The petitioner has also admitted in cross-examination, while deposing as DW1, that at the time of execution of deed his father, Hazrat Jee in favour of plaintiff, he was not present. Apart from this evidence produced by the parties with special reference to revenue record, shows that the suit property is Abadi-deh situated in Khasra No. 1814, extract from Jamabandi to this effect is placed on file Ex.PW1/2 for the year 1998-99 posted as Ex.PW1/D-1, also reveals that the disputed Khasra as Abadi-deh, wherein suit house is situated. Patwari Halqa produced the sketch of the house Ex.PW1/1. The status of the defendant as owner is nowhere proved from the record, nor he has advanced his case to this effect. The occupation of the defendant over the suit property has not been justified by the defendant, as in what status he is in possession of the suit house, if at all he denies the relationship of tenancy with the plaintiff. The possession claimed by him has not been proved, to be termed as illegal possession through evidence available on file whereas the plaintiff has produced Ex. PW2/1, rent deed which has been admitted by the defendant leads to conclusion that his father was inducted to the suit house as tenant and on his death he is retaining same possession. The evidence produced by the plaintiff is consistent, cogent and grouch of the defendant, does not find support from the available record.

3. The Courts below have passed the impugned judgments with aid of reasons. There is no jurisdictional or legal error in the impugned judgments and I am of the considered view that the Learned Courts below have neither misdirected, nor misread in arriving to the conclusion which is entirely in consonance with law and facts of the case. For the foregoing reasons, the instant petition being devoid of merit, is dismissed. MM/118/P Petition dismissed.