1989SCMR1951 (PLP)

SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑This petition for special leave to appeal arises out of the judgment and order, dated 14‑9‑1987 whereby in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction a learned Single Judge in the Lahore High Court set aside 8n order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the Additional D1strict Judge.

2. Respondents Nos.1 and 2 hereinafter called the contesting respondents were tenants under Mst. Asia in two different portions of the same house. On 31‑5‑1.983 Mst. Asia entered into an agreement with the petitioners for sale of the house. The sale price was fixed at Rs.1,85,

000. At the time of execution of the agreement Mst. Asia received Rs.1,00,000 on account of the sale price. The relevant clauses in the agreement stated:‑‑ On 9‑1‑1984 Mst. Asia executed the sale‑deed in favour of the petitioners. This deed was reg1stered on 12‑1‑1984.

3. Soon after the execution of the agreement of sale but before the execution of the sale‑deed the petitioners sent notices under section 13‑A, Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, to the contesting respondents informing them of the agreement of sale and calling upon them to pay rent to them. The contesting respondents did not pay any rent to the petitioners whereupon the latter filed an ejectment application against them. The contesting respondents res1sted the application on the ground that no relationship of landlord and tenant ex1sted between the parties. This plea was put to trial by the learned Rent Controller. After holding that such a relationship did ex1st between the parties, the learned Rent Controller directed the ejectment of the contesting respondents. From the order of the Rent Controller the contesting respondents filed an appeal before the Additional D1strict Judge but it was dismissed. They then invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to call in question the legality of the order of ejectment. A learned Single Judge accepted the writ petition and declared the order of the Rent Controller to be without lawful authority with the following observation:‑ * * * * * * * the only notices issued by the respondent‑applicants (now the petitioners) with regard to the supposed transfer made in their favour are, dated 28‑8‑1983 (Annexures C/4 and C/5) but the transfer to them was actually made on 9‑1‑1984 by means of reg1stered sale‑deed (Annexure C/1). It is not their case that they have issued any notice subsequent thereto, as per the requirement of section 13‑A of the Ordinance which itself provides that in the absence of such a notice, there is no question of the petitioners being the defaulters in the payment of rent to the applicants to become liable to be ejected on that ground. The petitioners seek leave to appeal from the order of the learned Single Judge.

4. In support of this petition it is contended, that under the agreement of sale they became entitled to receive rent from the contesting respondents. They were thus `landlords' within the meaning of section 2(c) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance. The failure of the contesting respondents to pay rent to them soon after the receipt of the notices made them defaulters and as such they were liable to ejectment. The learned Single Judge in the High Court was, therefore, not right to interfere with the order of ejectment in exercise of the Constitutional jurisdiction.

5. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioners needs examination Leave to appeal is granted. Security for costs in the sum of Rs.5,

000. The appeal may be made ready for hearing on the present record with permission to the parties to file additional documents, if any. A.A./T‑45/S Leave granted.