P L D 1982 Lahore 449 (PLP)

This writ petition is directed against an ejectment order whereby the petitioner, Bashir Ahmad, has been directed to vocate a shop. Before the ejectment proceedings were launched against him, a lot of litigation has taken place in regard to the said shop. Admittedly, the shop was originally owned by Malik Abdul Ali and ten others. Mst. Zeenat Begum was one of these eleven owners. While seeking eviction of the petitioner; it was alleged by respondent No. I, Abdul Hamid, hereinafter referred to as the respondent, that he had purchased the shop from Mst. Zeenat Begum and Muhammad Islam and had thus become its owner. It was explained by him that Mst. Zeenat Begum, referred to above, was owner of half of the shop in dispute. As for Muhammad Islam, it was stated by the respondent that he (Muhammad Islam) had purchased half of the shop from the aforesaid owners other than Mst. Zeenat Begum. It was, therefore, pleaded by the respondent that by purchasing the shop from Mst. Zeenat Begum and Muhammad Islam he had acquired ownership of the entire shop. According to him, the peti tioner was occupying the shop at the time of its sale in his favour and thus he became his tenant qua the said shop. It was alleged by the respondent that after purchasing the shop, he had served the petitioner with a notice under section 13‑A of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance, but the petitioner had not paid him any rent for the shop in question. He, therefore, prayed for the ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of default. Another ground pressed by the respondent for eviction of the petitioner was that he (respondent) required the shop for personal use. The ejectment proceedings were resisted by the petitioner inter alia on the ground that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. On this, a preliminary issue was framed by a Rent Controller of Sargodha, who was seized of the ejectment application. After recording the parties' evidence thereon, the learned Rent Controller found that the above relationship did exist between the parties. ' He, therefore, without holding any further inquiry in the case, ordered the eviction of the petitioner. The order of the Rent Controller was challenged by the petitioner by means of an appeal which was dismissed by the District Judge, Sargodha. He has, therefore, filed this writ petition.

2. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent had failed to establish that he had purchased the whole of the shop in dispute and, therefore, he could not be treated as its landlord. It was also urged by his learned counsel that while deciding the ejectment matter the learned Rent Controller had relied on the judgments and orders passed in other cases ‑relating to the disputed property although they were not admissible in evidence. It was, therefore, urged by him that the orders of the two Tribunals below were open to interference by this Court.

3. In reply, it was submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent had placed on record copies of the registered sale‑deeds Exh. A‑3 and Exh. A‑4 executed by Mst. Zeenat Begum and Muhammad Islam respectively which left no room for doubt that he had purchased the disputed‑ shop and had thus became its owner. As for admissibility of copies of the judgments and orders made in the other cases, it was argued by learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner too had placed reliance on copies of similar judgments and orders. These documents, according to the learned counsel, were relevant for the purpose of ejectment proceedings and could, therefore, be taken into consideration. It was also maintained by learned counsel for the respondent that the Rent Controller was not a Court and, therefore, he was not bound by the rules of evidence as embodied in the Evidence Act, 1872. For this proposition he placed reliance on Khadim Mohy-ud‑Din and another v. Ch. Rehmat Ali Nagro and another (1) ; Faqir Muhammad v. Muhammad Yasin and 2 others (2) and Javaid Iqbal v. Rana Muzaffar Khan (3). 4. . While commenting on the arguments raised by learned counsel for the respondent it was pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that although Mst. Zeenat Begum, who had sold half of the disputed shop to the respondent, was one of the original owners of the disputed shop there was nothing on the record to indicate that Muhammad Islam, who had sold the other half of the disputed shop to the respondent, had purchased that half of the shop from its original owners. Therefore, according to him, the respondent could not be treated as owner of other half of the disputed shop which he claimed to have purchased from Muhammad Islam.

5. As regards the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent had not established that he (respondent) was sole owner of the shop in question, it was not denied by the learned counsel that he (respon dent) was owner of half of the shop purchased from Mst. Zeenat Begum. Thus, admittedly, he was one of the owners of the aid shop if not the sole owner thereof. It has been ruled in Khalique Ahmed v. Abdul Ghani an another (4) that one of the co‑owners of the property can al3o take out ejectment proceedings. Therefore, even if it is assumed that the respondent was not the sole owner of the property in question he was entitled to seek ejectment of the petitioner for being a co‑owner thereof. In this view of the matter, I see no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent had no locus standi to take out ejectment proceedings. (1) P L D 1965 S C 459 (2) P L ‑D 1964 Lah.686 (3) 1976 S C M R 229 (4) P L D 19.73 S C 214

6. This bring me to the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the copies of judgments and orders passed in other cases relating to the property in question were not admissible in evidence. In has been ruled in the aforementioned case of Javaid lqbal that the Evidence Act does not strictly apply to proceeding before the Rent Controller. Further, similar documents were relied upon by the respondent himself. As ruled in Khadim Mohy‑ud‑Din and another the Rent Controller was to hold an inquiry as an executive officer or quasi‑judicial officer. There was, therefore, no legal bar to his taking into consideration the aforesaid copies of the judgments and orders produced by the parties. It is also to be noted . that the respondent's oral evidence to the effect that the relationship of landlord and tenant, was there between the parties had not been rebutted by the petitioner by entering the witness‑box or by examining any other witness. I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the finding of the two tribunals below, namely, that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties.

7. In view of the above discussion I find no force in this petition. It is, therefore, dismissed with costs. It is, however, directed that the order of eviction shall not be executed against the petitioner for four months. S. A. H. Petition dismissed.