SHAFIQUE AHMAD Versus MUHAMMAD ASHRAF, CIVIL JUDGE

ORDER

SAAD SAOOD JAN, J .‑‑These are two petitions for special leave to appeal. In both the petitions the contesting parties as well as the property in dispute is the same.

2. The dispute relates to a part of the property situate in Shahdara Town, Lahore. Both parties sought transfer of the property before the Settlement authorities and the litigation came right up to this Court. The predecessor‑in‑interest of the contesting respondents, namely, Muhammad Sharif, turned out to be successful and the transfer documents were issued in his name.

3. The contesting respondents filed an application for the ejectment of Mahmood Ahmad, one of the legal representatives of Hakim Mukhtar Ahmad. On their part, the petitioners filed a civil suit for a declaration that Muhammad Sharif had obtained the transfer of property by committing fraud. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court and its decision was upheld by the Additional District Judge and the High Court. The contesting respond‑tints were successful in obtaining an order of eviction against Mahmood Ahmad. The order of eviction was maintained by the Additional District Judge and the writ petition of the petitioners, challenging the order of eviction was dismissed.

4. Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.1130 is directed against the order of eviction. C.P.S.L.A. No.119 ‑of 1984 arises out of the suit filed by the petitioners.

5. It may be mentioned that the learned counsel for the petitioners had not addressed any argument in C.P.S.L.A. No.119. As regards the other petition, his case is that on the death of Hakim Mukhtarl Ahmad all his heirs had jointly inherited the tenancy and as such proceedings for eviction taken against Mahmood Ahmad alone, were) improper.

6. We find little merit in this contention. There is no evidence that except Mahmood Ahmad any of the petitioners was in occupation of the property in dispute. Apart from that, none of the petitioners except Mahmood Ahmad applied for being impleaded before the Rent Controller. It was also not their case that they had ever tendered any rent to the contesting respondents. In the circumstances, we did not find any merit in these petitions which are hereby dismissed.

M.I. /S‑168/S Petitions dismissed.