2010 PLP 1374 (YLR)

RAJA MUHAMMAD SHAFQAT KHAN ABBASI, J.

Through this appeal appellant/tenant has assailed the judgment and decree dated 13-11-2008 and orders dated 22-4-2008 and 3-6-2008 passed by Additional District Judge, Mailsi and Rent Controller respectively.

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent/applicant filed an application for eviction of the appellant from the shop, which was owned by his father Ahmad Khan who leased the property in questioned to the appellant from 1-12-1993 to 30-12-2003. The original owner Ahmad Khan died in the year 2000 and respondent became owner who filed ejectment petition on the grounds that appellant has changed the premises without obtaining the permission from the landlord. Rent Controller after framing the five issues directed the appellant to deposit the monthly rent as admitted in the written reply i.e. Rs.2700 per month vide order dated 12-1-2008. Respondent filed an application for striking of right of defence of the appellant due to non-payment of rent which was ordered on 12-1-2008 whereupon Rent Controller struck the right of defence of the appellant on 22-4-2008 and accepted the ejectment petition after recording the ex parte evidence of the respondent on 3-6-2008. He filed an appeal which was dismissed on 13-11-2008 hence this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that impugned order is not in accordance with law; that appellant is co sharer/co-owner, the impugned orders are not in terms of section 35-A of the (Punjab Rented Premises Ordinance 2007) (Punjab Ordinance No.XXI of 2007). (The Punjab Rented Premises Ordinance 2007) (Punjab Ordinance No.XXI of 2007) was promulgated on 16th November, 2007 whereby Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 (VI of 1959) was repealed impugned orders have been passed by Rent Controller on 22-4-2008 and 13-6-2008, when Ordinance was in the field; that Rent Controller was not competent to pass the impugned order that proceeding pending before the Rent Controller shall stand referred to the "Rent Tribunal of the District" and same shall be decided by the Rent Tribunal in accordance with provision of the repealed Ordinance. It was also provided that pending appeals will be decided in accordance with the provision of repealed Ordinance under section 2(a) (d), of the Ordinance 2007, it has been proved that Rent Controller appointed under the repealed Ordinance shall exercise and perform the functions of a Rent Tribunal and a Rent Registrar till the appointment of a Special Judge (Rent) and a Rent Register for the district or the area under this Ordinance.

4. Conversely learned counsel for the respondent states that the appellant has not complied with the order of Rent Controller and has not deposited any rent to the respondent; hence Rent Controller has rightly passed the impugned order in accordance with law; that the concurrent findings cannot be interfered by this Court in view of the fact that relationship between the landlord and tenant is admitted.

5. I have gone through the impugned orders passed by the courts below.

6. Admittedly lease agreement of the appellant was expired in the year 2003, which was not extended. After the expiry of the agreement, rights and liabilities of the tenant fell to be governed by the Provisions of West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959. The appellant has deliberately disobeyed the order passed by the Rent Controller and committed default in payment of the rent. He has not paid any rent in compliance of the order to the respondent. The order passed by the Rent Controller under section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 and the order passed by the appellate Court are in accordance with law. Reliance is placed on the case Waheed Ullah v. Mst. Rehana Nasim 2004 SCMR 1568, Muhammad Saeed v. Muhammad Asghar 2008 MLD 236, Liaqat Hayat Khan Wahla v. Mian Muhammad Trust Hospital Faisalabad 2008 MLD 883.

7. That contention of the appellant is that he is paying the rent to Mst. Mukhtara Mai sister of the appellant does not carry weight, as Mst. Mukhtara Mai herself appeared in the Court and made statement in favour of the respondent regarding the ownership of the property. The appellant has admitted tenancy in his written reply, I am not impressed upon the plea of the appellant that he has purchased the shop in the premises and thus he became co-sharer he should be considered to be in a possession of each inch of the land in question and the appellant can seek his remedy in the civil Court. I am fortified with a view from the dictum of the Apex Court in a case Nazir Ahmad v. Mst. Sardar Bibi and others 1989 SCMR 913 in which it has been held as under: "Ejectment. Tenant purchasing share of one of co-sharers of demised shop and thus claiming to be co-sharer. Such tenant's plea that having become co-sharer in shop, ejectment proceedings against him were incompetent, repelled up to High Court

Tenant admitted to have entered the shop as a tenant under landlord at a specified categorical admission by tenant, notwithstanding purchase by him of a certain share of disputed property, would not entitle him to challenge status of landlord qua suit property nor existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between parties

Sale transaction of certain share in suit property having taken place during pendency of ejectment proceedings, Rent Controller who was exercising limited jurisdiction under Rent Restriction Ordinance, could not adjudicate upon ownership rights of parties

Tenant, however, would be at liberty to seek his remedy in Civil Court

Petition being devoid of merit, was dismissed."

8. The appellant has not complied with the order passed by the competent Court of law. He could not be allowed to retrain the possession of the rent premises. This contention of the appellant remained contumacious by not complying with the lawful order of the Rent Controller which was up-held by the appellate Court. The appellant has failed to perform his legal obligation and wilfully disobeyed the order of the Court and is trying to prolong his illegal stay in premises on one pretext or the other. Under section 35(2)(a)(d) of the Ordinance 2007 it has been provided that Rent Controller appointed under the repealed Ordinance shall exercise and perform the functions of a Rent Tribunal and a Rent Registrar till the appointment of a Special Judge (Rent) and a Rent Registrar for the district or the area under this Ordinance. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that no tribunal has been appointed in the District Vehari hence the impugned order passed by the Rent Controller is in accordance with law. The appellant was not able to bring on the record to show that "Rent Tribunal" in terms of section 35(2)(a) of the Ordinance 2007 have been appointed hence till the appointment or constitution of the "Rent Tribunal" Rent Controller has competently passed the impugned orders.

9. The findings arrived at by the learned Courts below are concurrent and the learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any illegality or jurisdictional error muchless any irregularity therein. The impugned judgments and decrees are well-reasoned and elaborate and no interference is called for therein.

10. Resultantly, this appeal being merit-less is dismissed.

11. The learned trial Court is directed to proceed in the matter expeditiously in accordance with law. S.A.K./M-525/L Appeal dismissed.