2010 PLP 1988 (MLD)

CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.

This writ petition has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 11-2-2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot, who accepted the appeal, set aside the order of learned Rent Controller And directed the petitioner to vacate the suit shop and hand over its possession to the landlord.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1 filed an ejectment petition pertaining to suit shop on the ground that respondent No.1 is landlord/owner of suit shop while the petitioner is the statutory tenant under him. The respondent No. 1 filed the eviction petition on the ground of default and personal need. The petitioner/tenant was summoned who resisted the eviction petition, filed written reply, whereby, the petitioner/tenant denied the relationship of landlord and tenant.

3. That after framing the issues and recording of evidence of both the parties, learned Rent Controller vide order dated 14-11-2009 dismissed the ejectment petition and held that relationship of landlord and tenant does not exist between the parties.

4. Feeling aggrieved, respondent No.1 filed an appeal which was allowed on 11-2-2010 by Mian Muhammad Anwar, learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot, who set aside the order of learned Rent Controller and accepted the eviction petition. Hence this writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned judgment is result of misreading and non-reading of evidence. The learned first appellate court has not applied his judicial mind. The petitioner is owner of suit shop on the basis of an agreement to sell executed between the petitioner and Khaliq-uz-Zaman Siddiqui, which fact was ignored by the learned first appellate court. Further contends that the petitioner was never served with any notice of transfer of premises and eviction petition is also not maintainable under section 5 of the newly promulgated rent laws. Therefore, the writ petition be allowed, impugned judgment and decree be set aside and the order of learned Rent Controller be maintained.

6. Conversely learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the writ petition and has supported the impugned judgment. Learned counsel for the respondent contends that the petitioner is statutory tenant under him. The respondent No.1 is owner of suit shop on the basis of registered sale-deed executed between Khaliq-uz-Zaman Siddiqui, the previous owner of shop in favour of the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 required the suit shop bona fide for his personal need. The petitioner is a wilful rent defaulter, therefore, writ petition be dismissed.

7. Arguments heard. Record perused.

8. Admittedly the petitioner is in possession of suit shop since long. Respondent No.1 purchased the suit shop from Khaliq-uz-Zaman Siddiqui, the previous owner of the suit shop, who executed an agreement to sell in favour of petitioner on 24-4-2006. In the said agreement to sell which is duly signed by Khaliq-uz-Zaman Siddiqui, petitioner and the witnesses, it is categorically mentioned that petitioner is tenant under Khaliq-uz-Zaman Siddiqui in suit shop. So despite the fact that a lease agreement has not been reduced in writing between the petitioner and respondent No.1, the petitioner shall be presumed as statutory tenant.

9. The next objection of the petitioner is that he was not served with a legal notice, is not tenable because it is settled principle of law that an ejectment petition shall be presumed as notice to the tenant about the transfer of ownership. Similarly, petitioner's objection that since lease agreement has not been executed as provided under section 5 of Punjab Rented Premises Ordinance, 2007, is misconceived because the petitioner has been occupying the suit shop much before the promulgation of present Punjab Rented Premises Ordinance, 2007.

10. The next argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is owner of suit shop on the basis of agreement to sell which was executed between the petitioner and Khaliq-uz-Zaman Siddiqui, has no substance because an un-registered agreement to sell does not create a title in favour of the purchaser and further the petitioner has concealed this important fact that on 29-1-2007 he gave his undertaking in writing in presence of witnesses that he could not make arrangement for the payment of suit shop, therefore, the agreement to sell be rescinded and thereafter, the respondent No.1 purchased the suit shop through registered sale-deed.

11. As a result of above discussion, it is fully proved that respondent No.1 is owner of suit shop. The petitioner is tenant under him who has defaulted in payment of rent.

12. For the foregoing reasons, writ petition is devoid of any merit, same is dismissed. S.A.K./R-66/L Petition dismissed.