P L D 1984 Peshawar 46 (PLP)

H. Saadullah Khan Mian Khel for Appellant. Muhammad Iqbal Khan Kundi for Respondent. Date of hearing : 10th October, 1982. This second appeal under section 15(4) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 11‑1‑1981 of the District Judge, Bannu,. whereby appeal of the respon dent against the judgment and decree dated 29‑4‑1980 passed by the Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Bannu, was dismissed with costs.

2. Niaz Muhammad Khan was the owner of House No. 182/D(B) who inducted the appellant tenant in the said house as his tenant on payment of Rs. 50 as monthly rent ; that on 7‑6‑1976 the landlord‑respondent filed an ejectment petition No. 10/R. C. against the present appellant‑tenant for his eviction from the suit house and also for the recovery of arrears of rent since 1‑4‑1975 ; that the rent‑deed Exh. P. W. 1/1 was executed by the appellant tenant in favour of the landlord‑respondent on 25‑I 1‑1973 ; that the appellant tenant has failed to pay rent w.e.f. 1‑4‑1975 and has impaired the utility of the suit house. As such, he is liable to ejectment.

3. The said application was contested by the appellant‑tenant and a preliminary issue, "whether there exists the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties" was framed by the learned trial Court. After recording such evidence as the parties wished to adduce, the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that relationship of landlord and tenant did exist between the parties. He accordingly ordered the appellant‑tenant to deposit the arrears of rent w.e.f. 1‑4‑1975 to 1‑9‑1979, which he did. It may be mentioned that the tenant brought a suit No. 31.8/1. of 1.979 for declaration to the effect that he was owner of house No. 184/13, and that Naiz Muhammad Khan, landlord‑petitioner, has got no concern whatsoever with it. But as the suit No. 318/1 of 1979 was in respect of House No. 184/13 whereas the ejectment application related to House No. 182/D(B), the learned trial Court vide its detailed order, dated 29‑4‑1980 granted a decree for ejectment in favour of the landlord‑respondent and the appellant‑tenant was ordered to vacate the suit premises within two months. Against this order, the tenant went on appeal to the Court of the learned District Judge, Bannu, who vide his judgment and decree dated 11‑1‑1981 while concurring with the decision of the lower Court dismissed the appeal with costs, as stated above.

4. Learned counsel for the parties heard at length and record perused with their assistance. It has been clearly admitted by the appellant in his written‑statement that he was a tenant under Niaz Muhammad Khan, in the house in which he is still residing but claimed that he has purchased the said house from the Department and a P. T. D. has been issued in his name. But a reference to the statement of Mushtaqur Rehman, Clerk of the office of Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Bannu, who is a common witness of the parties, will clinch the matter that the house in occupation of the appellant tenant bears No. 182/D(B) whereas the house purchased by him bears No. 184/13. It, therefore, follows that the appellant‑tenant was a tenant under the landlord‑respondent in his House No. 182/D(B) as has been admitted by the former in rent‑deed Exh. P. W. 1/1. Though the appellant‑tenant has filed a declaratory suit, which is still pending, in respect of House No. 1.84/13 but that will not stand in the way of the petitioner to get possession of the suit House No. 182/D(B). Learned counsel for the landlord‑respondent (it may be pointed out that during the pendency of this appeal the landlord respondent Niaz Muhammad Khan died and his legal representatives 1 to 8 have been brought on record as respondents) made a reference to spot ins pection report, appearing at page 56 of the record, and argued that it has been clearly recorded therein by the department that Niaz Muhammad is recorded as in possession of evacuee property No. 182/13 comprising of 13 Marlas, which property in the survey card has been given Nos. 181‑182/13. The report further shows that during spot inspection no house bearing No. 184/13 was traced. In fact, House No. 182/13 consisted of three houses comprising of 131 Marlas. He further made a reference to Exh. D. X‑2, which is photostat copy of Survey Register wherein against Serial No. 215, House No. 182/13 has been shown to be the ownership of B. Paree Ram and in possession of Niaz Muhammad Khan. The learned counsel then argued that from the record it has been established beyond any doubt that the disputed house bears No. 182/D(B) and not 184/13. It is also clear from the rent‑deed, Exh. P. W. 1/1, that the same was executed by the appellant‑tenant in favour of predecessor‑in‑interest of respondents 1 to 8; in respect of House No. 182/DB).

5. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the respondents cited Sadiq Ali v. M. D. Arif (P L D 1975 Lah. 284) ; Roshan Ali v. Settlement Commissioner, Khairpur Division and another (P L D 1975 Kar. 444), wherein it has been held by their Lordships that relationship of landlord and tenant once admitted by the tenant; he cannot resile from his admission and if he does so, it will amount to estoppel against the tenant. Kalimullah v. Amin Hazin and others (1975 S C M R 77) also supports the view that "once person accepts another as his landlord and enters into possession of premises. he cannot he allowed to challenge title of his landlord" The learned counsel for the respondents lastly cited Mst. Kalsoom Akhtar and 8 others v. Muhammad Yaqub (P L D 1976 Kar. 992) wherein the word "landlord" has been defined and it has been held that section 2(c) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 declares a person to be the landlord who for the time being is entitled to receive rent. It does not insist that the condition of owner‑hip of the building or rented land should be fulfiled before a person could be the landlord of the premises in dispute. In the case in band it is amply clear from the record and admitted by the appellant, that the latter was occupying suit House No. 182/D(B) under the landlord‑respondents on payment of monthly rent ; that for certain period he paid the rent and then stopped it ; that later on he challenged the ownership of the landlord but the evidence on record establish that number of suit house is 182‑D(B) and not 184‑D ; and that the appellant‑tenant has failed to prove his stand that he is not liable to eviction from the suit house.

6. The net result of the above discussion is that both the lower Courts have rightly held the appellant‑tenant as defaulter in payment of rent of the disputed house and liable to ejectment. While agreeing with the concurrent findings of the two Courts below I dismiss this appeal, with costs. M. Y. H. Appeal dismissed.