2003 PLP 1207 (SCMR)

TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.

Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby Civil Revision No.352 of 1989 and Writ Petition No 1118 of 1989 both filed by the petitioner, were dismissed through consolidated judgment, dated 3-10-2000 impugned in this petition.

2. Facts as stated by the petitioner are that the plot bearing No.587-B, People's Colony Extension Scheme, Faisalabad (hereinafter called the scheme) was in unauthorized occupation of one Allahzai Khan The Government of Punjab Housing and Physical Planning Department Promulgated Scheme through Letter No. 20(11)73 HM-II, dated 10-7-1977 whereby it was decided to regularize residential plots in occupation of unauthorized persons who held possession prior to 27-4-1974.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that aforementioned unauthorized occupant Allahzai Khan executed an Iqrar Nama on a non-judicial stamp paper worth Rs.2 in December, 1967 transferring his rights in his favour. Thereafter he rented out the disputed property at the monthly rent of Rs.200 to respondent Zafar Ali, Zafar Ali respondent in the meantime got prepared forged and fabricated documents and he too applied for the regularization of the plot under the aforesaid scheme.

4. The District Housing Committee, Faisalabad took up this issue and vide letter, dated 22-10-1983 accepted the claim of the petitioner being genuine and regularized the unauthorized occupation of the disputed plot. The claim of respondent Zafar Ali was rejected. The respondent filed a suit for declaration on 24-11-1983 stating therein that he was in occupation of the disputed plot for the last 15 years and was entitled to its regularization under the Scheme. He also took exception to the order, dated 22-10-1983 of the Secretary, District Housing Committee, Faisalabad for regularizing the disputed plot in the name of the petitioner.

5. The suit was contested by the petitioner/defendant, issues were framed, parties led their evidence and the learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Faisalabad vide his judgment, dated 27-3-1988 dismissed the suit. The respondents filed an appeal and the learned Additional District Judge vide his judgment, dated 29-1-1999 reversed the determination of the learned Trial Court and decreed the declaratory suit filed by the respondent Zafar Ali. The petitioner filed Revision Petition which has been dismissed through the impugned order.

6. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner also filed an ejectment petition under section 13 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance against Zafar Ali respondent. The respondent denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. However, the learned Rent Controller vide order, dated 27-3-1988 accepted the ejectment application and directed eviction within one month of the passing of ejectment order. The respondent filed an appeal against the aforesaid judgment which was accepted vide order, dated 29-1-1989 by the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad. Thereafter petitioner filed a Writ Petition No.1118 of 1989 taking exception to the Order, dated 29-1-1989 by the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad. The Writ Petition as well as Civil Revision filed by the petitioner were dismissed by consolidated judgment, dated 3-10-2000. Hence, these petitions for leave to appeal.

7. We have considered the contentions and have gone through the documents appended with these petitions. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the matter of regularization was once finalized by the District Housing Committee through order, dated 22-10-1983, as such the Civil Court was not competent to re-open the issue at the behest of respondent through a declaratory suit. We must observe at the, very outset that the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Civil Court has got no jurisdiction in the circumstances of this case, is totally devoid of any force. The authenticity and genuineness of a document can always be tested by the Civil Court who has got plenary jurisdiction in this regard. The District Housing Committee has declared the documents produced by the respondent Zafar Ali, as bogus and accepted that of the petitioner without holding any inquiry into that. Before the Civil Court the parties were put at issues and the evidence was recorded. It has been established through confidence-inspiring evidence brought on record by the respondent that he took disputed plot from Allahzai Khan in the year 1967. Behram Khan son of Allahzai Khan has entered the witness-box as P.W.5 from his side and stated in categorical terms that his father shifted to Lahore in 1967 and sold the property to respondent Zafar Ali for an amount of Rs.10,000 which he received. On this issue the respondent was not cross-examined. His testimony went unrebutted. Apart from this it is admitted position that the respondent is in possession of the property and the petitioner has not brought on record either the alleged rent deed or any receipt of the rent. The Additional District Judge after scanning the entire evidence brought on record held it as a fact that the respondent Zafar Ali secured the disputed property in the year 1967 prior to 27-4-1974 which entitled the illegal occupants for regularization according to Scheme. The High Court after scanning the entire evidence has maintained the determination of the First Appellate Court and the learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality. Accordingly, leave to appeal is refused and petition is dismissed. M.H./L-22/S Petition dismissed.