2011 PLP 1383 (MLD)

SH. AZMAT SAEED, J.

This Writ Petition is directed against the judgment dated 4-2-2011 whereby the appeal field by petitioners against their ejectment order dated 6-4-2010 was dismissed.

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the lis at hand are that on 3-11-2006 father of respondent No.3 filed an ejectment petition against the present petitioners under section 13 of Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. Said petition was resisted by the petitioner inter alia by taking up the plea of denial of relationship of landlord and tenant. Matter eventually came up before this Court in Writ Petition No.2441 of 2009 and by means of order dated 15-4-2009 while setting the orders impugned aside, remanded the case to the learned Rent Controller for deciding the matter afresh. And in post remand proceedings, father of respondent No.3 withdrew the ejectment petition on 11-5-2009. Subsequently, on 26-5-2009 present respondent No.3 filed an ejectment petition under section 15 of the Punjab Rented Premises Ordinance, 2007 which had since been enacted seeking ejectment of the petitioners from the same premises in dispute. Petitioners filed an application seeking leave to contest the petition which was dismissed vide order dated 14-2-2009 and ejectment order was passed. Aggrieved, petitioners filed appeal which was accepted and the case remanded to the Rent Tribunal. In post remand proceedings, the Rent Tribunal vide order dated 6-4-2010 dismissed petitioners' application for leave to contest the ejectment petition and ordered eviction. Being aggrieved, the petitioners filed an appeal which failed to find favour and was dismissed vide impugned appellate judgment dated 4-2-2011.

3. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that originally the father of present respondent No.3 had tiled application seeking petitioners ejectment from the premises in dispute. Said application had been filed purportedly on the basis of a rent deed dated 5-1-2001. Petitioners had denied the relationship of landlord and tenant, and on the basis of the contentions of the petitioners, this court through order dated 15-4-2009 had set aside the ejectment order which had been maintained in appeal, and remanded the case to the Rent Controller, where the ejectment application was withdrawn. Subsequent application was filed by respondent No.3, where once again the relationship of landlord and tenant was denied. Adds that it is an admitted fact inter se the parties that respondent. No.3 is not the owner of the property, and therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was not the landlord under the provisions of Punjab Rented Premises Ordinance, 2007, whereunder ejectment petition being filed by respondent No.3 therefore it was contended the petitioners should have been granted leave to contest the ejectment petition.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 has controverted the contentions being raised on behalf of the petitioners by contending that relationship of landlord and tenant inter se the parties had been admitted by petitioners during the course of earlier litigation, therefore, they are now estopped from denying the same and no case was made out to leave to contest the ejectment petition in favor of the petitioners.

5. It is a matter of judicial record that in the previous round of litigation regarding premises in dispute, upon an application filed by respondents father, the petitioner had denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and had specifically asserted that they were tenants of present respondent No.3. In the earlier Writ Petition No. 2441 of 2009 the petitioners in the present proceedings had specifically stated that they were the tenants of Faisal Naeem vide rent agreement dated 5-1-2011, copy of the written statement was filed. And in terms of order dated 10-2-2009, contentions of the learned counsel for the present petitioners were also recorded to the effect that petitioners were tenants of Faisal Naeem, respondent No.3 in the instant petition. In this Court's judgment dated 15-4-2009 in paragraph 4 it was observed "under the admitted rent agreement between Faisal Naeem and the petitioners, it is the former who had inducted the letter in possession of the dismissed premises". In the above circumstances, petitioners in unequivocal terms have repeatedly taken up the plea that they were tenant under Faisal Naeem present respondent No.3. Having taken up the said plea, petitioners are now estopped from denying their relationship of landlord and tenant in view of Article 115 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, as has been held in the case reported as PLD 2009 SC 45 Mst. Seema Begum v. Muhammad Ihsaq and others. Furthermore, landlord had been defined in the Punjab Rented Premises Ordinance, 2007 so as to include not only the owner but also a person entitled to receive rent, which is exactly the sane definition as stipulated in Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The aforesaid leaves no manner of doubt and dispute that it is not only the owner but also a person entitled to receive rent comes within the definition of the term landlord and is entitled to seek ejectment of his tenant. Incidentally the afore quoted judgment of the apex Court supra is with reference to case emanating front Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. Furthermore, the rejection of the application for leave to contest the ejectment petition and the order of ejectment was challenged in appeal, which was accepted and case was remanded by the appellate court vide order dated 19-1-2010. However, the finding as to the relationship of landlord and tenant was not disturbed. Said appellate judgment was not challenged by the present petitioners.

6. In view of above, it is clear and obvious that petitioners themselves repeatedly admitted to be tenants of respondent No.3, and are now estopped from taking up the plea of denial of said relationship, hence, no ground for the grant of leave to contest the ejectment petition was made out and the same was rightly replied. Impugned orders suffer from no legal infirmity and jurisdictional defect warranting interference by this court in the exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction with the result that captioned Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to cost. However, petitioners are allowed time to vacate the premises by or before 31-5-2011. S.A.K./R-31/L Petition accepted.