1991 PLP 1365 (MLD)

The facts leading to the filing of the above revision petition are that the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit against the petitioner for possession of Flat No.6, Qasr-e-Kulsoom, Al-Burhan Building, North Nazimabad, Karachi, Barkat-e -Haideri, Karachi. The case of the respondent, as set out in the plaint, was that he is tenant of the said flat which he obtained from Barkat-e-Haideri Charitable Trust at monthly rent of Rs.37 and subsequently he allowed his son-in-law (petitioner) to occupy and use the said flat on lease and licence basis. The case of the respondent was that after the death of his daughter, flat was needed for the marriage of his son. He asked the petitioner for vacating the said flat who kept him on false hopes and subsequently refused to vacate the same, which gave a cause of action to the respondent for instituting the suit for possession and he also claimed mesne profits with effect from 1st June, 1985. The petitioner contested the suit. He denied the allegations made in the plaint. The petitioner pleaded in his written statement that he was residing in the flat in dispute with his family and is paying rent to Barkat-e-Haideri Trust. The further case of the petitioner, as set out in the written statement was that since his wife was daughter of the respondent and when tenancy was acquired, receipt was obtained in the name of respondent as Benami, the respondent has no interest or right over the flat in dispute. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed appropriate issues. The parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions. The relevant issues for the purposes of this revision petition are issues Nos. 2, 3 and 4 which read as under:- "(2) Whether the plaintiff ever paid rent of the disputed premises or the same was always paid by the defendant? (3) Whether the disputed premises has always been in occupation of the defendant and he has always paid the rent to the landlord, if not what is its effect? (4) Whether the defendant is the real tenant of the disputed property or he is only a licensee'? The learned Senior Civil Judge, on assessment of the evidence on the record, came to the conclusion that the rent of the said flat was always paid by the respondent. He also found that the respondent is not the real tenant but he is only a licensee. He also found that the respondent never alleged that he was residing in the flat in dispute. In that view of the matter, he decreed the suit. The petitioner being aggrieved went in appeal before the District Judge, Karachi which was ultimately heard by the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Karachi Central. The learned Additional District Judge on re-assessment of the evidence on record, re-affirmed the findings of the learned Senior Civil Judge. Hence the present revision petition. I have heard Mr. Ch. Muhammad Yaseen, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.M. Sabtain Rizvi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. I have gone through the pleadings of the parties, the evidence led by them and the impugned judgment. Mr. Chaudhri raised the same contentions as were raised before the Ist Appellate Court. The case of the petitioner, as set out in the written statement, was that he was tenant of Barkat-e-Haidri Charitable Trust and he was paying rent to Barkat-e-Haidri. Both the Courts below on assessment of evidence found that respondent was tenant of Barkat-e-Haidri. The petitioner also alleged that it was a Benami transaction. This plea was also rejected by the Courts below. The Courts below came to the conclusion that respondent was tenant and he let out the premises to the petitioner on lease and licence basis. In the circumstances, therefore, the learned counsel failed to make out a case of misreading or non -reading, of evidence on the record. I am convinced that the concurrent findings of facts by the two Courts below are in consonance with the evidence on the record and there is hardly any reason calling for interference with the same particularly when no objection as to the jurisdiction to pass the impugned judgment by the Courts below has been taken. The result is that this revision petition being without merit is hereby dismissed in limine. The above are the reasons for the short order dated 15-8-1990 dismissing the revision on conclusion of the arguments. H.B.T./A-1025/K Revision dismissed.