1994 PLP 2293 (CLC)

‑‑‑‑S. 13‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Concurrent ejectment orders passed by competent forum‑‑‑Constitutional petition against such concurrent findings was devised to perpetuate possession indefinitely and thus amounted to abuse of process of Court‑‑‑Petitioner's suit on basis of adverse possession was pending adjudication in civil suit‑‑‑In case of petitioner's success in establishing any title to premises in question, he could have the decree executed through legal process‑‑‑Constitutional petition being not competent against concurrent findings of forums below was dismissed in circumstances. Ch. Inayat Ullah Khan for Petitioner. Sh. Khalil‑ur‑Rehman for Respondent. Muhammad Rafiq respondent having acquired the suit premises from the Settlement Department by virtue of PTD No. 6501 of 31‑8‑1971 (Appendix B) and serving the petitioner with notice contemplated by section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 affirming statutory tenancy over freshly raised structure demolishing the old one, sought the latter's ejectment there from averring default in the payment of rent of RS.300 p.m. since June, 1979, which was contested by the petitioner denying the relationship of landlord and tenant claiming to be in possession thereof in own right since the year 1947, which was eventually granted by the learned Rent Controller, Lahore nearly after a decade on 25‑2‑1991 and was upheld in appeal vide the impugned order dated 20‑5‑1992, legality whereof has been assailed in these proceedings reiterating the stance in addition to the submission that it was an open site over which petitioner raised the construction out of his own resources; during the course of hearing whereof it transpired that independent of reconrsing to a declaratory suit on the latter count which is pending adjudication, petitioner had instituted a suit claiming adverse possession in conjunction with others which was dismissed as well as a suit for permanent injunction, which was later on withdrawn, factum whereof was deliberately suppressed; further upon query it was frankly admitted that till date petitioner has no title to the suit premises. Having gone through the entire record, I am not pursuaded to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the two Courts below, conversely hold the view that this petition has been devised to perpetuate the possession indefinitely as an abuse of the Court process; however, if eventually the petitioner succeeds in establishing any title to the suit premises, he can have the decree executed through legal process. Resultantly the petition fails and is hereby dismissed in limine. A.A./M‑1711/L Petition dismissed.