2004 PLP 1568 (SCMR)

MUNIR A. SHIKH, J.

In an ejectment petition filed by the respondents seeking eviction of the petitioner from the premises in dispute, on 13-2-2002, the Rent Controller passed order for deposit of arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.900 per month and subsequent monthly rent regularly till the disposal of the ejectment petition. The petitioner failed to comply with the said order, therefore, on 9-3-2002, his defence was struck off and he was ordered to vacate the premises and deliver its possession to the respondents.

2. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the First Appellate Court through judgment, dated 3-6-2002 against which Constitutional petition filed by him has been dismissed through the impugned judgment, dated 2-4-2003 by the Lahore High Court against which leave is sought.

3. The main burden of arguments presented by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this petition was that in the written statement, the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant had been denied, therefore, before passing order for the deposit of rent under section 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, an issue should have been framed and findings recorded.

4. We have gone through the impugned judgment and find that in the written statement, the reason for denial of existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was that there was an oral agreement of sale in favour of the petitioner by the respondents-landlord for an amount of Rs.5,00,000 out of which an amount of Rs.1,00,000 was paid as earnest money and that prior thereto the property was occupied by the petitioner's father. The rate of rent of Rs.900 per month was not denied. The proceedings before the Rent Controller were summary in nature.

5. After considering the defence plea raised in the written statement, the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that it was not a case of denial of existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, for if there was an oral agreement of sale, the petitioner should first establish the same before the proper forum.

6. The order of deposit of arrears of rent and future monthly rent regularly should have been complied with by the petitioner to qualify him to be heard in support of his defence plea raised in the written statement. He failed to do so. The plea raised by him prima facie does, not appear to be bona fide, for oral agreement of sale was raised. It has been rightly observed that till such time the Court of competent jurisdiction decides about the existence of such agreement of sale, the same could not be made the basis for denying the right of the landlord of rent about which order was necessary to be passed to safeguard the interest of the parties and in particular the landlord so that in frivolous litigation, he may not be deprived of the rent.

7. The orders passed by the Courts do not suffer from any legal infirmity, therefore, this petition has no merits which is accordingly dismissed and leave refused. S.A.K./W-1/S Leave refused.