1986 PLP 1008 (MLD)

2. The relevant facts of the case are that one Nasir Ali Shah and Mst. Zohra Bibi sought eviction of the petitioner from the disputed house on the ground that he did not pay rent to them and that the house was required by them for their personal use. 'The ejectment petition was resisted by the petitioner. The learned Rent Controller framed following issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties:‑ (1) Whether the petitioners are entitled to receive the rent? (2) Whether the petition is premature? (3) Whether the petitioners require the disputed house in good faith for personal use? (4) Whether the respondent has paid the rent for the disputed period to the petitioners in time? (5) Relief. The learned Rent Controller recorded evidence led by the parties and allowed the ejectment petition and that order was maintained in appeal on 12‑4‑1980 by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the property in dispute was initially owned, by one Ghazanfar Ali Shah who had been receiving rent from him. Later on the property in question was taken over by Auqaf Department. Mst. Sughran Bibi got the property, in dispute declared as non Waqf property and it was notified as such he contesting‑respondents are neither owners nor landlords of the disputed property and for that reason no rent was paid to them. It was contended that mere declaration made by the learned District Judge holding that the property in dispute is not a Wakf property at the instance of Mst. Sughran Bibi confers no right on his successors to assume that the property has devolved upon them. It was further submitted that the learned Rent Controller did not allow the petitioner to produce rent receipts executed by Ghazanfar' Ali Shah attorney nor the same were allowed to be put to Ghazanfar Ali Shah when he appeared as P.W.5. It was argued that the learned Additional District Judge wrongly rejected petitioner's application for producing those receipts as additional evidence. It was also submitted that the learned Rent Controller as well as the lower appellate authority erred to hold that the property in dispute was required in good faith for the use of landlords. It was submitted that this being a point of law could be agitated before this Court in writ jurisdiction 4. 'Learned counsel for the contesting respondents controverted the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and pointed but that Mst. Sughran Bibi was owner of the property in dispute and on her application the same was declared by the learned District Judge to be non Waqf property. It was further pointed out that the petitioner in para 4 of the application under Order VI, rule 17, C.P.C. admitted, that half ‑of the property in dispute would go to the contesting respondents. This being so even a joint owner/landlord could maintain ejectment petition. He further referred to pare 2 of the written reply, wherein the petitioners admitted that they never paid rent to the respondents or their predecessor before or after taking over of the property by the Auqaf Department. He further referred to para 10 of the reply wherein it was admitted that notice sent by the respondents was received by the petitioners and was duly replied but no rent tendered or paid to them.

5. I have considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and find that the pedigree‑table given by the petitioner in his application under Order VI, rule 17, C.P.C. read with para 4 thereof makes it clear that the contesting‑respondents were successors of Mst. Sughran Bibi who obtained declaration on the basis of her application containing averment to the effect that the property in dispute was owned by her and was not a Wakf property Petitioners admit that they did not pay rent to the contesting respondents even after the receipt of notice; as concurrently held by the learned Rent Controller and the learned Additional District Judge. This circumstance alone renders them liable to ejectment the disputed property on the ground of default. Ghazanfar Ali Shah attorney on behalf of the contesting‑respondents appeared as P.W.5 and categorically asserted that Mst. Sughran Bibi was owner of the property, and Nisar Ali Shah her successor. He was not cross‑examined on this point. No one else had. claimed the property as owner or landlord nor the petitioner could produce anyone else to claim any right in the property before the Rent Controller. In these circumstances, the findings of the learned Rent Controller as well as the learned Additional District Judge call for no interference in writ jurisdiction, as the same are neither illegal nor suffer for wan of jurisdiction. This petition has no merit and is dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs. H.B.T. Petition dismissed