2021 PLP 1525 (YLR)

MUHAMMAD AMEER BHATTI, J.

This revision petition is directed against the concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the learned Courts below, whereby the suit instituted by the respondents was decreed by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 18.11.2006 but not to the satisfaction of the claim lodged by the respondents-plaintiffs. Consequently, both the parties preferred appeals and in the ultimate, petitioner's appeal was dismissed, however, the appeal of the respondents was partially accepted to the extent of enhancement of the price of hand-pump and doors, hence, this revision petition.

2. I have examined record of the case with able assistance of the learned counsel for the parties and also considered the arguments, addressed by them. It is noticed that suit of the respondents was based on the report submitted by the Bailiff, who got vacated the suit property from the petitioner in execution of the decree passed by the learned Rent Controller against the petitioner, wherein he alleged that the articles mentioned in para 8 of the plaint were missing from the house of the respondents at the time of taking-over possession from the petitioner. Consequently, the respondents instituted a suit for recovery of the amount-price of articles, which allegedly were removed by the petitioner at the time of handing over possession of the suit property. Both the learned Courts below concurrently held that the petitioner has failed to prove that the said articles belonged to him, so, the claim of the respondents was decreed to the tune of Rs.64,897/- whereas the most important question before the Courts below at the crucial time of handing over possession to the petitioner on rent basis was, "whether the said articles were lying-installed there or not". Examining of record depicts that there is no evidence on record in this respect. It was the prime duty of the plaintiffs-respondents first to prove this fact that at the time of handing over possession of the property on rent, said articles had, in fact, been installed and handed over to the petitioner, therefore, the removal of the said articles was without any legal justification; hence, the petitioner could be saddled for removal of articles from the premises of respondents at the time of eviction. The learned Courts below erred in law while holding that the petitioner has failed to prove that the said articles belonged to him, hence, he had no right to remove the same and as such liable to pay the price so that the respondents be compensated. Examining of plaint and the evidence led by the respondents left no option with the Court to hold that the respondents, who neither had alleged that they at the time of handing over the possession of the suit property on rent to the petitioner also installed all those articles in the premises-in-question. It is also matter of record that the petitioner purchased the functional factory of manufacturing tiles etc. from another tenant of the respondents, hence, the respondents could not claim that they handed over the premises to the petitioner along with fittings and fixtures. Since this aspect of the case has eluded the attention of both the learned Courts below resulting in miscarriage of justice, therefore, this Court, as held by the honourable Supreme Court, has the jurisdiction to annul the concurrent findings of fact if based on misreading and non-reading of evidence. Consequently, I reach on the conclusion that it is a fit case for exercise of power provided under Section 115, C.P.C. to rectify the wrong done by the learned Courts below. Thus, this petition is allowed and the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the learned Courts below are hereby set-aside. As a consequence whereof, the suit of the respondents stands dismissed. SA/B-7/L Petition allowed.