1989 PLP 2022 (SCMR)

MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑This is a tenant's petition for leave to appeal, against the dismissal by the High Court of his writ petition, against the orders of eviction passed under the Rent Restriction Law. The petitioner's plea that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties has been rejected throughout. Learned counsel has contended that the respondent landlord who claimed this status on the ground that he had become the owner of the property as a result of purchase thereof, had failed to establish his claim and that the question of ownership is still under litigation. After hearing him at some length, we do not agree. The learned counsel himself admitted that the petitioner had executed a rent note in favour of the respondent landlord. The explanation that the rent note was executed on 11‑7‑1985 while the reg1stered sale‑deed in favour of the respondent landlord is dated 14‑7‑1985, will not make any difference because as further stated by the counsel the sale‑deed vas prepared and executed on 10‑7‑1985 but was reg1stered A four days later. In these circumstances the execution of the rent note by the petitioner in favour of respondent No. 1 was neither improper nor illegal. Be that as it may, after this was done it was not possible under the Rent Restriction law for the petitioner to have successfully denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between him and respondent No.

1. The pendency of the litigation with someone else in this behalf will also not make any difference. Relying on Province of Punjab v. Abdul Ghani (P L D 1985 S C 1) the learned counsel also contended that the principle of forfeiture on denial of tenancy, not being applicable to such like cases, the Rent Controller should have allowed opportunity to the petitioner to contest the application on the assumption that the respondent No. 1 was landlord. The petitioner not having denied that he himself was only a tenant, in the circumstances of this case, could not have availed of dispute between the landlord and some other party. Learned counsel then in the end contended that the landlord having himself asserted that the petitioner had sent the rent for some time after the execution of the reg1stered sale‑deed, the eviction application should have been dismissed in exercise of discretion. When questioned whether the petitioner even now is willing to admit that he had sent the rent to the landlord which he had earlier denied, the learned counsel reiterated the denial of the petitioner in this behalf. That being so the petitioner's conduct in this behalf is not at all bona fide. Therefore, he would not be entitled to any discretionary relief. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused. A.A./T‑47/S Leave refused.