1998 PLP 133 (MLD)

S. 15(6)

Denial of relationship of landlord and tenant by tenant

Rent Controller dismissed landlord's application for ejectment

Appellate Court, however, reversed finding of Rent Controller

Validity

Landlord had purchased property in question through sale-deed and proceeded to issue notice through registered post, acknowledgment due, which was received by tenant-- Tenant instead of paying or tendering rent proceeded to get sale agreement executed from previous owner in his favour, filed suit for specific performance, which was dismissed

Pendency of suit for specific performance would not affect ejectment proceedings

Appellate Court had decided appeal in accordance with law and evidence available on record

Tenant had failed to make out case for interference in second appeal. Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhary for Appellant. The respondent filed ejectment petition against the appellant in respect of Chobara. It was pleaded that the same was let out by respondent at the monthly rent of Rs.300. The appellant appeared and contested the ejectment petition mainly on the legal objection that there is no relationship of tenant and landlord. The Rent Controller accordingly framed the following issues:-- "(1) Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties? OPA ' (2) Order." The respondent examined Hafiz Muhammad Rafique as AW.1, Ghulam Nabi as AW. 2, himself appeared as A.W. 3 while the appellant examined Muhammad Amin as R.W.2, Muhammad Ishaque as R.W.3 and himself appeared as R.W.1. The Rent Controller after hearing the arguments decided the preliminary issue in favour of the appellant and as a result thereof dismissed the ejectment petition vide order dated 11-4-1992, which was assailed by respondent through an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which came up on the file of Mr. Muhammad Nasim Akhtar Khan, Additional District Judge Sumandari, who accepted the appeal vide order dated 22-5-1996, which has been assailed through this appeal.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the respondent has failed to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant. It is added that the issue was correctly decided by the Rent Controller and learned Appellate Court has wrongly and illegally reversed the findings of the Trial Court.

3. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the record. The respondent has purchased the property through sale-deeds Exhs. A. 2 and A.

7. The respondent after the purchase of the property proceeded to issue notice through registered post, acknowledgment due, which was received by the appellant. The appellant instead of paying or tendering the rent proceeded to get the sale agreement executed from the previous owner. The learned Appellate Court has observed that their conduct is not appreciable. The appellant thereafter, filed a suit for specific performance, which has been dismissed. It was clearly held by the Appellate Court that the shop and the chobara is one unit, therefore, there is nothing wrong with the findings. The pendency of suit for specific performance does not affect ejectment proceedings. The Appellate Authority has decided the appeal before it in accordance with law and evidence available on record. The appellant has failed to make out a case for interference in second appeal. The same is dismissed in limine. A.A/H.38/L Appeal dismissed