2011 YLR 2558 (PLP)

CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.

This writ petition has been directed against the judgment dated 17-1-20] 1 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Multan.

2. Brief fads of the case are that respondents Nos.3 and 3-A filed an eviction petition against the petitioner with regard to suit property fully described in the head-note of eviction petition in which it was alleged that respondents Nos.3 and 3-A were owners of property through Exchange Deed No.5042/I executed on 29-3-1982. It was rented out through a written agreement on 18-5-1999 to the petitioner. The terms and conditions were settled in the written agreement. The landlords filed an eviction petition on the ground of rent default and also on the ground that the period of tenancy has expired. He further alleged that the petitioner/tenant has used the premises in a manner which has impaired its value.

3. The petitioner/tenant was summoned who filed an application for leave to contest and denied the relationship of landlord and tenant on the ground that the petitioner has purchased the suit property on 21-11-2008 through an agreement to sell. Thereafter the relationship of landlord and tenant does not exist between the parties.

4. The matter was heard and perused by the Special Judge (Rent), Multan who vide his order dated 12-6-2010 accepted the eviction petition and directed the petitioner to hand over the possession of premises within thirty days from the announcement of order.

5. Feeling dissatisfied, the petitioner filed an appeal which was also dismissed on 17-1-2011 by the learned Additional District Judge, Multan, hence this writ petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he has purchased the suit property on 21-11-2008 through an agreement to sell duly signed by the landlord, petitioner and the witnesses. There is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties after 21-11-2008 when the agreement to sell was executed but both the courts below have neither considered the agreement to sell nor the payment of Rs.20,00,000 which was made to respondents on account of earnest money. He has further contended that the petitioner has already filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell which is pending before the competent court for adjudication, therefore, writ petition be allowed, impugned judgments/ orders passed by both the courts below be set aside and the eviction petition against the petitioner be dismissed.

7. Arguments heard. Record perused.

8. The petitioner claims that he has purchased the suit property from one Mst. Azizan Begum and has become a co-sharer of the suit property which is comprising of a number of small rooms. The suit property is a joint property between the petitioner and answering respondent. In this regard, both the courts below have held that the property which was purchased from Mst. Azizan Begum is a separate property. Without going into controversial question that who is owner of property at present, important document for the disposal of this writ petition is the written agreement which was executed between the landlords and the tenant/petitioner. There is no cavil in it that the petitioner occupied the suit property as a tenant. Thereafter he cannot be allowed to deny the relationship of landlord and tenant particularly when the landlord has denied the execution of agreement to sell. A tenant could not be allowed to retain his possession simply on the ground of agreement to sell particularly when the landlord deny the execution of agreement to sell. It is also not denied that the petitioner entered into premises and occupied the possession as a tenant. Execution of agreement to sell by a landlord without termination of relationship of landlord and tenant does not absolve the tenant from paying the rent because once a tenant admits title of his landlord could not subsequently deny the same. The judgments/orders passed by both the courts below are well reasoned and elaborate orders. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality, jurisdictional error or infirmity in the impugned judgments. No interference is called for. Writ petition is without any substance, same is dismissed in limine. A.R.K./A-63/L Petition dismissed.