1989 PLP 3886 (MLD)

This Civil Revision is directed .against the judgment and decree dated 9-12 1987 passed by the Ist Additional District Judge (East) Karachi, whereby he dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 19-11-1981 passed by the VIth Senior Civil Judge, Karachi. The facts leading to the filing of the above case are that the petitioner filed suit being suit No. 72 of 1972 against the respondents. for possession and mesne profits. The petitioner claims that he is owner of the quarter No. 656 P.I.B. Colony having been allotted to him by the Society. It is the case of the petitioner that he offered the respondent to become his tenant but the offer was not accepted and the respondents did not vacate the quarter. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents continued their possession on the implied licence of the petitioner. Both the respondents filed separate written statements. The respondent No. 1 pleaded in his written statement that he ig in possession of the quarter in question since 25-5-1949 in his own right. The case of the respondent No. 1 has been supported in the written statement of respondent No.

2. However, the respondent No. 2 has not claimed any right in respect of the quarter in suit. On the pleading of the parties the trial Court framed six issues. The trial Court on the assessment of evidence, oral and documentary, came to the conclusion that the petitioner has failed to establish that he is the owner of the quarter. The trial Court found that the respondent No. 1 was not licensee of the petitioner as he occupied the quarter in suit since 25-5-1949. He found that the petitioner has failed to establish licence. On these findings the suit was dismissed by the trial ,Court. He went in appeal which was also dismissed. The first appellate' Court found that the petitioner is not entitled to the vacant possession of the quarter in suit as the respondent has acquired the title by way of adverse possession against the society. The appellate Court agreed with the finding of the trial Court that no licence was brought on the record to show that the respondent was inducted as a licensee. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Munir-ur-Rehman appearing in response to preadmission notice. I have perused the impugned judgments of the Courts below. It is not disputed that the respondent No. 1 is in possession of the quarter in suit in his own right since 25-5-1949. It is also not in dispute that the quarter was allotted to the petitioner in 1963. Both the Courts below have held that the petitioner has failed to establish that the respondent No. 1 is licensee of the petitioner. This is a concurrent finding of fact. I cannot interfere with this finding of the fact in revisional jurisdiction. If there is no licence then the question of revocation of licence or recovery of possession does not arise. It has come in evidence that the respondent No. 1 is occupying the quarter in suit since 25-5-1949. The respondent No. 1 has established that he is occupying the quarter in his own right. The learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out any misreading or misapplication of facts. The suit as framed is obviously for possession on the basis of implied licence. The petitioner has failed to. establish that the respondent No. 1 was inducted as licensee in respect of quarter in suit. The judgments of the Courts below are not contrary to evidence on record or contrary to law and do not call for interference by this Court. The result is that the revision is dismissed in limine. Consequently applications have become infructuous and are dismissed. The above are the reasons for the short order dated 24-1-1988, dismissing the revision in limine on conclusion of the arguments. M.Y.H./M-853/K Petition dismissed.