- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
(2.) The plaintiff/appellant is aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the appellate court dated 19.2.2004 by which the first appellate court reversed the findings of the trial court and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for eviction of his tenant/defendant no.1 Hasmat Khan. The defendant no.2 became party in the suit with the allegation that he is tenant and not the sub-lette of Hasmat Khan. The trial court held that the defendant no.1 is tenant and the defendant no.2 is sub-tenant. This finding was reversed by the first appellate court after considering the evidence of the parties and particularly, the diary produced by the defendant no.2 and after taking note of the fact that the defendant no.1, the alleged tenant in chief, not only supported the plaintiff but also appeared as witness of the plaintiff which cast serious doubt on credibility of the defendant no.1. I perused the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and facts of the case.
(3.) It is clear from the reasons given by the appellate court that the first appellate court considered the evidence of the parties and arrived at the conclusion that the defendant no.2 is not the sub-lette and is tenant in the suit shop.;