1986 PLP 2108 (MLD)

This writ petition is directed against order, dated 23‑7‑1984 of the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore whereby he dismissed petitioner's appeal and maintained order, dated 24‑6‑1984 of the learned Rent Controller, Lahore directing, his ejectment from the disputed property.

2. The relevant facts in brief giving rise to the present petition are that Mst. Zubaida Begum respondent herein sought ejectment of the petitioner from the disputed property on the ground that the petitioner had defaulted in payment of rent and that she required the premises in dispute for her own use. The petitioner resisted the ejectment petition and denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The learned Rent Controller on 22‑9‑1983 framed following issues:‑ (1) Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties? OPA (2) Relief. The learned Rent Controller recorded evidence led by the parties and found that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. Consequently, he directed petitioner's ejectment from the disputed property which order was maintained in appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore. Hence this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Rent Controller as well as the lower appellate authority, misread the evidence on record. It was submitted that the learned Rent Controller transgressed his jurisdiction and virtually decided the suit filed by petitioner in respect of the disputed property on the basis of mortgage deed executed in his favour by the previous owner. It was pointed out that pendency of the suit in ~ respect of the disputed 'property was brought to the notice of the learned Rent Controller but he did not stay his hands to decide the ejectment petition. It was contended that under the law, he was required to dismiss the ejectment petition and direct the respondent No.1 to the Civil Court to get established his title. Learned counsel relied on Rehmat Ullah v. Ali Muhammad and another 1983 S C M R 1064 in support of his submission. Learned counsel for the contesting respondent, at the very out set stated that in execution of the ejectment order passed against the writ petitioner, the respondent has already taken over possession of the disputed property. It was further stated that the suit filed by the petitioner is not against the respondent nor has she been impleaded as defendant in the suit. It was argued that the respondent became owner of the disputed property on the basis of a decree for specific performance passed in her favour. She served the writ petitioner with notice under section 13‑A of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 before filing ejectment petition against him. It was also stated that the mortgage deed referred to, by the petitioner stood already redeemed after the petitioner had received mortgage money.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the file. The learned Rent Controller as well as the lower appellate authority after evaluating the evidence on the record held that relationship of landlady and tenant existed between the parties. Petitioner's refusal to accept the respondent as his landlady after service of notice under section 13‑A of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 was not legally justifiable. The learned Rent Controller and in that, hierarchy the lower appellate authority reference to certain documents including the mortgage deed relating to the suit filed by the petitioner against the original owner, in determining as to whether the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties, and finding thereon, would be deemed to be only tentative, without influencing the decision; of the Civil Court seized of the matter. The petitioner has not been able to point out any misreading of evidence on the record to vitiate unanimous findings of the learned Rent Controller and the lower appellate authority holding the petitioner a tenant under respondent No.1. The authority cited by learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable on facts and is in no way helpful to him.

6. In the result, I find no merit in this petition and dismiss it with no order as to costs. H.B.T. Petition dismissed.