1995 PLP 490 (MLD)

Ghulam Murtaza Bhatti for Petitioner. Muhammad Ashraf Azeem for Respondent. Date of hearing: 8th May, 1994. This judgment will dispose of two revision petitions (C.Rs. Nos. 388 and 389 of 1986) as these are directed against the consolidated judgment dated 18‑7‑1985 passed in two appeals filed by the petitioners‑plaintiffs.

2. The relevant facts, briefly, stated are that Santa etc. plaintiffs filed I suit for possession of shop No. 55. situated in Killa No. 12/2, Square No. :5 measuring `30 x `12 Chak No.233/GB, Tehsil Jaranwala District Faisalabad d the ground that the said shop was rented out to Sultan, respondent, some eight years back at the monthly rent of Rs. 30 and that Sultan, respondent, had beer paying the‑rent regularly till about three years before the institution of the suit and as he has stopped paying rent and also refused to deliver vacant possession, as such the petitioners‑plaintiffs are entitled to recover possession thereof. A sum of Rs.1,080 as arrears of rent was also claimed. Sultan respondent, also filed a declaratory suit in respect of the same property claiming to have purchased it through oral sale and in the alternative claimed that he has completed perspective title over the suit shop on account of host adverse possession for more than 12 years. Both the suits were consolidate and after trial, suit filed by Santa etc., present petitioners was dismissed whiff the suit of Sultan, respondent, was decreed. The petitioners‑plaintiffs filed two appeals as noted above against the judgments and decrees passed in the two suits. These appeals were dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge Faisalabad vide impugned judgment and decree dated 18‑7‑1985.

3. Learned counsel in support of the revision petitions argued that tip judgments and decrees of learned two Courts below are not sustainable as the findings recorded are result of misreading and non‑reading of evidence on record.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of two suits and I find that the revision petitions are without merit. No documentary evidence was produced to substantiate the claim as to existence of tenancy between .the parties. The oral evidence produced by the petitioners‑plaintiffs is not only vague but also discrepant and in fact Santa's own witness Ahmed, P.W.1, admitted that Sultan, respondent was in possession of suit property since 1964, He, therefore, contradicts the assertion of the plaintiffs that the suit shop was given on rent to Sultan only 8 years prior to institution of the suit. A copy of the Jamabandi Exh. P/1 for the year 1980‑81 does not appear to be depicting the correct picture as another copy of the Jamabandi for the year 1980‑81 produced as Exh. D/5 contains in column (9) the entry that occupants are in possession as owners on account of purchase. The learned Appellate Court has correctly observed that Jamabandis from 1964 to 1977 on the file show Sultan respondent to be in occupation as owner on account of purchase. The Khasra Girdawari Exh. D/9 also supports the version of purchase. These entries were repeated in the Jamabandis for two decades but were not challenged. It has not been established on record that Sultan, respondent, had ever attorned to the plaintiffs. It was for these reasons that declaratory suit of Sultan was decreed as the prescriptive title of Sultan had matured much prior to filing of the suit by Santa etc., petitioners plaintiffs. The findings returned by the two learned Courts below do not suffer from any misreading or non‑reading of any material piece of evidence. The concurrent findings of fact as are based on the basis of evidence on record, cannot be substituted in revisional jurisdiction. For all these reasons, the two revision petitions fail and are dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost. AA./S‑517/L Revisions dismissed.