2013 PLP 678 (CLC)

IQBAL HAMEED-UR-RAHMAN, C.J.

By means of this constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has made the following prayer:

"It is most humbly prayed that writ petition may kindly be accepted and the impugned judgment/order dated 27-7-2011 and 20-9-2011 of learned trial Court and Appellate Court may be set aside and eviction petition of the respondent may be dismissed."

2. Facts of the case, succinctly for determination of the instant writ petition are that respondent No.1 herein filed ejectment petition against the petitioner and respondent No.2 seeking eviction of petitioner from demised premises i.e Shop No.19 (Basement), situated in Al-Safa Silk Centre, Rehmat Business Centre, Markaz I-10, Islamabad. The petitioner opposed the same vehemently by filing written reply; whereas respondent No.2 Muhammad Ejaz filed consenting written reply.

3. In order to resolve the controversy, the learned Rent Controller, framed the following issues:

ISSUES (1) Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the petitioner and respondent No.2, if not, its effect? OP Parties. (2) Relief.

4. After recording evidence and hearing the arguments, the learned Rent Controller vide order 27-7-2011 accepted the ejectment petition with the direction to the petitioner/tenant to hand over the vacant possession of the rented property to respondent No.1 within 30 days. Feeling dissatisfied the petitioner preferred appeal and the learned Additional District Judge, Islamabad vide judgment dated 20-9-2011 dismissed the same with modification that the petitioner and respondent No.2 are liable to be evicted from the demised premises, hence the instant constitutional petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order/judgment of both the courts below are against the law and facts; that both the courts below relied upon the agreement to sell; whereas under the law the same does not create any right; that the petitioner is tenant under respondent No.2, who in league with respondent No.1 had filed the ejectment petition to vacate the petitioner from demised premises; that both the order/judgment are result of misreading and non-reading of evidence on record, therefore, the instant constitutional petition be accepted by setting aside the impugned order/judgment.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material made available.

7. Ejectment petition was filed by respondent No.1 contending that demised premises were leased out to respondent No.2, who further sublet the same to the petitioner. It was further alleged in the ejectment petition that shop was required to respondent No.1 for his bona fide need. The petitioner while filing the written reply took a plea that there exists no relationship of landlord and tenant between him and respondent No.1, therefore, the above issue was framed.

8. The petitioner in his written reply has admitted in clear words that he obtained the demised premises on rent from respondent No.2.The petitioner has denied the relationship of landlord and tenant mainly on the ground that he obtained the demises premises from respondent No.2 and there is no lease agreement with respondent No.1. In order to prove his case, respondent No.1 produced sale agreement as Exh.A-1, which clearly demonstrates that respondent No.1 purchased the premises along with some other properties and he had the right even to sell the same under the said agreement. The petitioner has not produced any evidence to prove that the same was not a valid document. It was the contention of the petitioner that one Rehmat Khan was owner of premises in question. Sale agreement reveals that respondent No.1 purchased the premises from said Rehmat Khan, when said Rehmat Khan has not challenged the sale agreement anywhere, the same cannot be treated to be forged or fictitious document at the instance of the petitioner. If Rehmat Khan was owner of premises and respondent No.2 got the same from him on rent, then the petitioner could get summon the said person in order to prove his contention, but it was not done so. From the record it stands proved that respondent No.1 had purchased the premises under the said agreement. It is also settled law that question of title is not to be determined by the Rent Controller. In this regard I am pinning my faith on the case of Aadil Nadeem Rizvi v. Gohar Siddique and others (2004 SCMR 738).

9. It has proved on record that the premises were given to respondent No.2, on rent who subsequently sublet the same to the petitioner. Under the law sub-lessee has no legal right to remain in possession of the rented premises. Reliance in this regard is placed on the case of Muhammad Sarwar v. Muhammad Shafi (1986 SCMR 1638). There appears no illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order/judgment, which are based on sound and cogent reasons. I find no reason to take a different view.

10. There are concurrent findings of fact of both the courts below, warranting no interference by this Court in its extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Mst. Nasim Fatima through legal heirs and others v. Sh.Ala ud Din and others (PLD 2005 Supreme Court 445) held as under:

"There were concurrent findings of three Courts against the tenants essentially, involving the questions of fact; as such the same was itself sufficient for Supreme Court not to show indulgence

Same principle was applicable to High Court as well."

11. For what has been discussed above, the instant constitutional petition being devoid of merits is dismissed in limine. KMZ/19/Isl. Petition dismissed.