1996 PLP 1779 (SCMR)

SALEEM AKHTAR, J.

This appeal with the leave of the Court arises from the following facts as noted in the order granting leave:-- The dispute between the parties relates to a house situated in Mohallah Kamangaran of Chiniot Town. It was in the occupation of the appellant. On 21-6-1989, respondents Nos. 3 and 4, hereinafter called the contesting respondents, filed an application before the Rent Controller for the eviction of the appellant. They alleged that the appellant was occupying the house as a tenant under them but had defaulted in the payment of rent. They also alleged that the appellant had damaged the house and that it was required by them for their personal use and construction. The appellant resisted the application. He denied that he was in possession of the house as a tenant under the contesting respondents. He claimed that he was the owner of the house. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Rent Controller framed an issue to the effect whether the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. Both parties led evidence on the issue. The learned Rent Controller preferred the evidence led by the contesting respondents to that produced by the appellant. Accordingly, he held that the appellant was occupying the house as a tenant under the contesting respondents. On the basis of this finding he directed the eviction of the appellant. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Rent Controller the appellant filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Chiniot. After re-appraising the evidence on the record learned Additional District Judge affirmed the finding of the Rent Controller and upheld the order of eviction. The appellant filed a Constitution petition in the High Court to call in question the legality of the order of eviction. A learned Single Judge dismissed the petition, holding that no case for interference with the concurrent finding of the authorities under the Rent Restriction Ordinance had been made out. .

2. The appellant contended that the house in dispute stands on a piece of land which has been shown in the Revenue Record as part of the local graveyard. His father had constructed the house about 40 years ago from his own resources on the site, which was vacant at the relevant time and was part of the graveyard. After the death of his father, he occupied the house and laid roof twice or thrice. His main grievance was that at no stage the evidence produced by him was taken into consideration. Leave was granted to consider whether the Revenue Record produced by the appellant supported his contention. The learned counsel for the appellant referred to Jamabandi which is at pages 26 and le 27 of Part II of the paper book filed by respondents Nos. 3 and

4. He has referred to Khasra No. 6984, Khatoni No. 2629 against which amongst others appellant's name is also mentioned as the owner. However, there is no evidence on record to show that the disputed house is in Khasra No. 6984. This document, therefore, cannot be of any assistance to the contention of the 8 appellant that he is the owner of the house in dispute. On the other hand all the Courts after examining the documentary and oral evidence have concurrently held that the house belongs to respondents Nos. 3 and

4. Except Jamabandi referred above no other Revenue Record has been produced or any document of title to show that the appellant is the owner of the disputed house.

3. The learned counsel referred to a judgment of Magistrate 1st Class, Chiniot dated 30-10-1989 in respect of a case under section 379/411, P.P.C. instituted on the F.I.R. lodged on behalf of respondents Nos. 2 and

3. The appellant was stated to be their tenant and he had refused to pay rent and also to vacate the house. It was alleged that, there was an old tree in the house, which has been cut and the wood has been taken away by the appellant. The case was dismissed and the learned counsel referred to the judgment in which it was observed that the copy of the Register Haqdaran Zamin produced by the appellant shows that the house is in the land belonging to Ahl-e-Islam and the appellant is the owner and in occupation and as there is dispute going on in the Court, which has not been decided, the charge of theft has not been made out. The appellant was acquitted. Relying on this judgment the learned counsel contended that the house belongs to the appellant. This was a judgment in a criminal case and it is well-settled that a Criminal Court cannot decide question of title. However, the learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that this judgment was set aside and the case was remanded to the Court of Resident Magistrate 1st Class, Chiniot, who by judgment dated 10-7-1991 convicted the appellant of offence under section 411, P.P.C. and sentenced him to three years' R.I. In the judgment it was observed that in view of the evidence of Patwari of Halqa Chiniot No.1 and Patwari of Halqa Chiniot No. 2 it was proved that the appellant had produced false documents to prove his claim of ownership. Taking note of this, the learned Magistrate 1st Class observed that "for the treacherous and wilful deceit caused to the Court which has been entailed above, separate legal action is being proceeded herewith". Strangely enough the learned counsel for the appellant showed his ignorance about this judgment although it was annexed with the paper book filed by the respondents, and he is not in a position to state whether this judgment has been challenged by the appellant. We do not find any illegality, irregularity or infirmity in the concurrent findings of the Courts below. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal with costs of Rs.10,

000. A.A./A-1384/S Appeal dismissed.