1991 PLP 1096 (CLC)

‑‑‑‑ Ss. 2(c)(i) & 13 ‑‑‑ Relationship of landlord and tenant ‑‑‑ Courts below recorded concurrent finding of fact that petitioner was inducted as a tenant into premises in dispute by original owners of premises ‑‑‑ Position of parties as landlord and tenant thus had been clearly established on record in view‑of‑such finding. Mian Sher Alam for Petitioner. Khan A. Hamid for Respondents. Date of hearing: 24th March, 1991 This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan calls in question the judgment dated 7‑5‑1986 passed by the learned Additional District Jude, Lahore whereby appeal riled by the petitioner against the order dated 17‑6‑1985 of the learned Rent Controller, Lahore was dismissed.

2. Briefly the facts are that Mst. Ghulam Fatima the predecessor in interest of Mistry Siraj Din etc. respondents Nos.3 to 10 herein, filed an application for ejectment under Section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 against the petitioner in respect of property No.NE‑VII 17‑S‑12, Dodi Pir, Jinnah Park, Sultan Pura, Lahore on the ground that it was required in good faith for the use of her elder son Muhammad Amin. The application was resisted by the petitioner who took the plea that he entered into an agreement to sell with Mst. Ghulam Fatima, wherein it was stated that the petitioner shall be owner in possession of the property in dispute from the date of execution of the agreement and on these premises relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was denied. In view of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Rent Controller framed an issue "whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties", and thereafter after appreciating the evidence led by the parties decided the issue in favour of respondent/landlord and against the petitioner. Consequently, the ejectment application was accepted and the petitioner was ordered to be evicted by order dated 17‑6‑1985 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Lahore. On appeal the learned Additional District Judge after re appreciating the evidence on record held that the mere fact that predecessor‑in interest of the petitioner had entered into an agreement to sell tile property in dispute, would not ipso facto create cessation of relationship landlord and tenant between the parties. It was held that "the suit Filed by the appellant is still pending adjudication and until a decree in that suit is passed, it would be premature to say that the appellant has become owner of the property in dispute." On these premises the appeal was dismissed vide judgment dated 7‑5‑1986. Mian Slier Alam, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that it was clearly stipulated in tile agreement to sell Exh. R‑1, that the petitioner shall be the owner in possession of the property in dispute from the date of execution of the agreement, and, therefore, in view of dictum laid down in case of Rehmatullah v. Ali Muhammad and another (1983 S C M R 1064), the learned Rent Controller ought to have decided the issue of relationship of landlord and tenant in favour of the petitioner. The contention is devoid of any force. It is an admitted fact as stated by Mian Sher Alam at the Bar that the suit filed by the petitioner for specific performance of the agreement to sell in respect of the disputed property was dismissed by the Civil Court on 20‑2‑1991. The matter is now pending in appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore in which the next date of hearing is fixed therein for 21‑4‑1991 and meanwhile, stay order has been granted in his favour. Clearly adjudication of civil rights enforcing the contract for agreement to sell the property in dispute fell beyond the jurisdiction of Rent Controller. Such a dispute was rightly, not undertaken and determined finally by the learned Rent Controller in the ejectment proceedings. The same view was taken by the Supreme Court in Mst. Azeemun Nisa Begum v. Ali Muhammad (P L D 1990 S C 382) which I respectfully follow.

4. The dictum laid down in case of Rehmatullah (supra) does not advance the case of the petitioner. In the precedent case, it was held that the Rent Controller cannot decide the question of relationship of landlord and tenant against the tenant when the landlord has not been able to establish his position as landlord beyond reasonable doubt. Here a finding of fact has been recorded that the petitioner was inducted as a tenant into the premises in dispute by Mst. Ghularn Fatima the original owner. Thus the position of the parties as landlord and tenant has been clearly established on record.

5. In view of the above the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed with costs. H.B.T./M‑2786/L Petition dismissed.