1994 PLP 2204 (CLC)

‑;‑‑S. 115‑‑‑Concurrent: findings on questions of fact were not susceptible to a further review in revision. Mian Ghulam Hussain for Petitioner. Respondents' in person. Date of hearing: 8th February, 1993. Sole defendant in the suit of recovery of actual possession of a house and mesne profits seeks to revise agreed judgments and decrees of the lower Courts passed against him. A residential house, in Gali No. 6 of Mohalla Muhammad Pura, Tehsil and District Faisalabad, belonged to Ali Muhammad. By a deed registered on 26‑2‑1979 it was transferred by him in favour of his two daughters, namely Mst. Sardar Begum and Mst. Rasool Bibi. Their ownership of the house was later borne on excise and taxation records. The defendant was in occupation of the house. Plaintiff claimed that he had unauthorizedly occupied the house, and, was a trespasser in it. On 4‑5‑1983, they brought a civil suit against him to recover possession of the house from him and also the mesne profits for its use and occupation at the rate of Rs.200 per month from the date of the commencement of his unauthorized possession. Defendant resisted the suit mainly on the ground that he was a tenant in occupation of the house holding under Ali Muhammad. Therefore, suit for possession based on title was incompetent and because of existence of tenancy relationship between the parties, Civil Court had no jurisdiction to proceed with the matter. His case was that the Rent Controller, urban area, 'Faisalabad had exclusive jurisdiction in the matter. Issues being framed, parties to the suit gave evidence for and against. Upon its scrutiny, the trial Court found for the plaintiffs and decreed the suit. for possession, and, mesne profits at the rate and period claimed by them. As said above, appeal filed against the decision also failed. There was neither dispute about ownership of the house nor its possession by the defendant‑petitioner. Only point urged was about holding of tenancy‑right in the house by the defendant and jurisdiction of the Civil Court to hold trial of the suit. Jurisdiction was dependent on the plea of tenancy. If the defendant is held to be a tenant of the house, jurisdiction of the Civil Court shall be ousted. Conversely, there shall be no bar for it to entertain and try the dispute. Tenancy pleaded was oral. There was no document either directly or collaterally to support the tenancy. There were no receipts for showing payment of rent either. Mere deposit of some amount in the Treasury by the defendant unilaterally would not clothe him with the legal status of tenancy under the respondents. Oral evi4ence led in this behalf by him was not convincing and was rightly brushed aside for cogent reasons in the lower Court. In Ahmad, Din v. Mst. Muhammad Nisa and another (PLD 1961 (W.P.) Karachi 237),‑ a Division Bench observed that:‑‑ "Tenancy is a status which carries certain advantages. That status must be secured by evidence of a very high order." I have looked into the record and am sufficiently convinced that the plea of tenancy was not adequately established. Plaintiff gave strong evidence to support unauthorized possession of the defendant on the house in question. The house was situated in Faisalabad City. It had two or three rooms accommodation. Rs.200 per month as compensation for its use and occupation could not be termed excessive. In course of currency of revision in this Court, an order for deposit of due amount was made. It is not known, ‑ whether the defendant petitioner deposited the amount in obedience to the orders of the Court. In case, the deposit was made, it may be paid to the respondents. The findings on questions of fact are not susceptible to a further review in revision. In view of the aforesaid, there was little merit in the Civil Revision Therefore, it is dismissed with costs. Records be returned. A.A./M‑1715/1, Revision dismissed