2005 PLP 1627 (YLR)

Respondent No.3 in Person. This second appeal has been filed against judgment/order dated 22-12-2003 passed by learned Additional' District Judge Sheikhupura, dismissing ejectment petition of the appellant holding that there does not exist any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, by reversing ejectment order of respondent No.2 passed by learned Rent Controller.

2. Precisely, relevant facts are that the appellant filed an ejectment petition under section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent. Restriction Ordinance, 1959, with the assertions that disputed property was rented to the respondent at a monthly rent of Rs. 400 which was increased after one year' to Rs.600 per month. According to the averments of the appellant electricity charges were to be paid by the respondent at a fixed rate of Rs.200 per month but he did not pay the rent, as well as, electricity charges and thus, Committed. Default amenable to eviction under section 13 of the Ordinance, (ibid). He also claimed that property in question is needed by in for his own bona fide personal need.

3. The respondent No.3 contested the ejectment petition by filing a written reply wherein he raised certain preliminary objections, including that of denial of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The Rent Controller vide his order, dated 10-2-2003 accepted the ejectment petition and directed eviction of the respondent No.3.

4. The respondent No.3 aggrieved of the decision of the Rent Controller dated, 10-2-2003 filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge where he succeeded and ejectment application against him was dismissed and eviction order was set aside, by accepting his appeal vide order, dated 22-12-2003. The appellant has now filed a second appeal for annulment of appellate order dated 22-12-2003. The respondent No.3 in response to notice by this Court, is present in person to contest this appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that Rent Controller at one stage did frame an issue regarding existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties but subsequently deleted it and at the conclusion of the trial ordered ejectment of the respondent No.3 and as such, Appellate Court was not justified in again holding that relationship of landlord and tenant does not exist between the parties. It has also' been contended that the appellant did prove his title to the property by producing registered sale-deed in his favour and in presence of this documentary evidence, findings of the First Appellate Court are not maintainable. \Re further submits that the only defence taken by the respondent No.3 in his written statement was mat he is .in possession of the property on the basis of an alleged agreement to sell which is forged and fictitious.

6. The respondent No.3 present in person, supported the judgment of the First Appellate Court and submitted that property in question was never let out to him and he is not in its possession as a tenant under the appellant. He also contends that he is in possession of the property in his own rights under an agreement to sell executed by the appellant, on the basis of which he has already filed a suit for specific performance which is pending adjudication before the Civil Court at Sheikhupura.

7. I have considered the respective arguments and have examined the record, appended herewith. Undeniably, tenancy claimed by the appellant is oral and he in order to prove it, has produced no other evidence except his own statement wherein he claimed that the respondent No.3 is his tenant. There is no corroborative evidence, documentary or oral, in support of the statement of the appellant and on its basis an ejectment order against the respondent No.3 could not have been passed under the provisions of Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. Production of registered gift-deed by the appellant do prove his title to the property but does not prove relationship of landlord and tenant between them which had to be proved before earning an ejectment order under the Ordinance, (ibid), even in absence of an Issue on this point. Title of the appellant is not denied by the respondent No.3 as he himself has claimed an agreement to sell, of a part of his property on the basis of Which he claims to be in possession of it. Suit by the respondent No.3 for specific performance of the agreement is reported to be pending and the Court cognizant of it will decide whether this agreement to sell was in fact executed or not. For the purpose of this litigation, it is obvious that the appellant could not prove relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and thus, judgment/order of the First Appellate Court is absolutely in consonance with the evidence on the me and the law applicable.

8. Since the appellant derives title out of a registered gift-deed which is not disputed by the respondent No.3, the appellant, if so advised, may file a suit for possession of the property against the respondent No.3 before the Civil Court. Affirming judgment/order dated 22-12-2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura, this appeal is disposed of having no merit in it. There will be no order as to costs. H.B. T./M-914/L Appeal dismissed.