MUHAMMAD YOUNUS vs AKHTAR HUSSAIN AND Other

ORDER

1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.-The petitioner filed a suit for grant of Injunc--tion to restrain the respondents from interfering with his possession of Shop No. 39/W-2, Rail Bazar, Lyallpur. He pleaded that he had acquired title by adverse possession of the shop since 1-4-1959. The suit was dismissed by the trial Judge, petitioner's appeal was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, and his second appeal to the Lahore High Court met with the same fate, and he now seeks special leave to appeal.

2. The background of the case is that one Atta Muhammad, who was a tonapt of the disputed shop which was owned by Zahoor Hussain and Ghulam Hussain, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, had sublet the shop to the petitioner. The said Atta Muhammad filed ejectment application against the petitioner, and in there proceedings the petitioner took the plea that the shop was leased out to him directly in October 1960, by the landlords. The Controller accepted this plea and dismissed the ejectment application of Atta Muhammad. This order was also upheld in appeal. Ghulam Hussain and Zahoor Hussain then on 9-9-1971 filed ejectment application against the peti--tioner which was granted by the Rent Controller. Petitioner's appeal against this order was rejected and his second appeal was also dismissed by the Lahore High Court. In pursuance of the ejectment order, petitioner has already been dispossessed from the shop. It was during these proceedings that the petitioner filed the suit which has given rise to the present petition. In the light of this factual background the Civil Judge held that the petitioner's suit was not maintainable for the reason that the petitioner had himself admit--ted in the ejectment proceedings filed by Atta Muhammad that he was then tenant of the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, and there was also no merit in the claim set up by him that he had acquired title through adverse, possession. The Additional District Judge, on appeal, further held that since the petitioner had not even prayed for grant of declaration of ownership through adverse possession, the suit filed by him under section 54 of the Specific Relief Act, for the grant of permanent Injunction only was not main- -tainable. The High Court on reappraisal of the case confirmed these views and dismissed the second appeal filed by the petitioner.

3. The petitioner who addressed arguments in person just repeated those submissions which were made on his behalf before the High Court. All these have been discussed at length by the Courts below and rejected for valid reasons. The petitioner cannot escape from his own admission that he was a tenant of the disputed shop, and it is obvious that he filed the suit only to thwart the ejectment proceedings against him. This is a totally frivolous petition, and is dismissed in limine.

4. In view of the result of the petition the interim order dated 23-5-1979 passed by this Court stands vacated.