1989 PLP 542 (SCMR)

JAVID IQBAL, J.‑‑Civil Petition No.777 of 1987, has been riled by Mst Akhtar Bibi etc. petitioners and Civil Petition No.778 of 1987 has been filed by Muhammad Sadiq petitioner, and both these petitions for leave to appeal are directed against the same judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 1st September, 1987 passed in Writ Petitions Nos.3283 and 3284 of 1987. Since these petitions arc connected, these are being disposed of by this order. Briefly the facts are that the disputed property is comprised of a shop and Chaubara. Chaubara was in occupation of Maqbul Hussain predecessor‑in interest of the petitioners in Civil Petition 777 of 1987, whereas the shop was in occupation of the petitioner in Civil Petition No.778 of 1987. The monthly rent of the Chaubara was Rs.80 and that of the shop Rs.125 payable to Muhammad Yousuf etc. the previous landlords. Afterwards the said property was purchased by Manzoor Ahmad and Munir Ahmad respondents from the original owners in 1980. Thereafter notice was given to the occupants about the change of ownership but the reply given by the petitioners in both the petitions was that one Sheikh Muhammad Taqi had served a notice on them for the recovery of rent of the premises on the basis of an agreement to sell. Eventually the aforesaid respondents filed eviction petitions for the ejectment of the petitioners. The petitioners denied the relationship of landlord and tenant but the Rent Controller held that such relationship did exist between the parties and, therefore, he ordered ejectment. On appeal the District Judge upheld the judgment of the Rent Controller observing that the petitioners were in collusion with Sheikh Muhammad Taqi and that he could not be recognised as landlord unless he was adjudged as such by a competent Court as owner of the disputed property. It was further observed that the petitioners had never tendered or given any rent to the t respondents landlords and as such their defence was rightly struck off. Learned counsel for the petitioners in both the petitions before us attempted to argue that there was confusion as to whom the rent of the property should be paid as there were two rival claimants demanding payment of rent from the petitioners. But the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore has correctly observed that the contesting respondents arc the bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration of the disputed property from the original owners and, therefore, they had been correctly held to be landlords and that furthermore, if Sheikh Muhammad Taqi was not a fictitious person, then he was claiming rent only on the basis of an agreement to sell which as against the registered sale‑deed in favour of the aforesaid respondents would not carry any legal weight at all. Thus the findings of fact are against the petitioners in both the petitions before us and no point of law is involved. In that view of the matter both the petitions are dismissed. AA./A‑380/S Leave to appeal refused.