1984 PLP 1039 (SCMR)

Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing :10th June, 1984. MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.‑Respondent No. 1 instituted an ejectment petition in the Court of the Rent Controller, Attock against the petitioner for his eviction from shop No. B‑III‑58 situate in Civil Bazar, Attock on the grounds of default in the payment of rent and subletting a portion of the said shop. The application was resisted by the petitioner on various grounds challenging also the title of respondent No. 1 and it was averred in the reply that the P. T. O. on the basis of which transfer of the said shop was claimed by respondent No. 1, had not been issued in his favour. By order, dated 29‑1‑1970 the learned Rent Controller found that the P. T. O. was issued in favour of respondent No. 1 and that be had also served then petitioner with a notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 ; and that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. After so holding the learned Rent Controller, vide his separate order of the same date, ordered the petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent at Rs. 16.50 per mensem before 15‑4‑1970. The rent was, however, not deposited as ordered by the Court on the ground that a civil suit was pending regarding the ownership of the suit shop. The matter was taken up before the High Court and finally before this Court resulting in dismissal of the appeal as well as C. P. L. A No. 218/R/ 1981 on 29‑5‑1982. After the said order of this Court the matter was taken up before the Rent Controller for further proceedings who, per order dated 4‑2‑1984, ordered the ejectment of the petitioner from the suit shop. Appeal preferred against the said order of ejectment, was dismissed vide order dated 26‑4‑1984. The petitioner then filed Writ Petition 287/1984 in the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench challenging the legality of the order passed by the Courts below. This writ petition was, however, dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court vide impugned order dated 26‑5‑1984.

3. Learned counsel contended that the Courts below have decided the points contrary to the pleadings of the petitioner that in the ejectment petition filed by respondent No. 1 he had based his claim of ownership of the suit shop on the basis of a P. T. O. study of which would show that this P. T. O. was never issued in the name of respondent No. 1 and this being the position the entire claim of respondent No. 1 falls to the ground ; that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner was entitled to be afforded an opportunity of showing cause for the non deposit of rent.

4. We have examined the contentions raised by the learned counsel and we are not impressed with any of the arguments raised by him. Then question of ownership or title of the suit shop as raised by the petitioner had been finally decided in favour of respondent No.

1. Since the Court off Rent Controller had passed an order for depositing of the arrears of rent the petitioner failed to deposit the rent. Learned High Court Judge also held that : "The fact remains that he was a brazen‑faced defaulter eversince partition and yet he tries to dwell upon a fishy objection that the transfer made in favour of the respondent was not valid on one ground or the other. The latest pronouncement in Muhammad Sharif and another v. Muhammad Afzal Sohail etc. P L D 1981 S C 246 deprecates the tendency on the part of tenants to raise such pleas in writ petitions." Thus, we find no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. S. Q. Petition dismissed.