1989 PLP 2285 (CLC)

Ejaz Ahmad Chaudhry for Petitioner. Through this Constitutional Petition Muhammad Sharif and Khalid Ayub petitioners want this Court to declare the orders dated 20‑7‑1988 and dated 22‑4 1989 passed by Rent Controller, 'Chishtian, respondent No.2 and Additional District Judge, Bahawalnagar, respondent No.l respectively, to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

2. The facts leading to this petition, briefly, are that on 1‑6‑1986 Nazir Ahmad respondent filed application for the ejectment of the petitioners from Houses No.54 and 55 situate in Street No.3, Gharib Mohallah, Chishtiah, before Rent Controller, Chishtian. The application was resisted. The relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties with respect to House No.54 was denied. The learned Rent Controller framed following preliminary issues:‑ (1) Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exist between the parties ? (2) Relief. Nazir Ahmad applicant/respondent appeared as AW.7 and produced Ch. Muhammad Siddiq, Advocate AW.1, Ch. Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate, AW.2 and Munshi Muhammad Yaqoob, AW.6. To prove rent deed Exh.Al executed by Muhammad Sharif petitioner in his favour, he produced Abdul Hameed, Petition writer, AW.3. Hafiz Muhammad Hussain AW.4 was produced to prove agreement of the extension of time for the vacation of the houses executed by petitioner No.l Ghulam Haider AW.5 stated that the suit houses were given on rent by respondent to Muhammad Sharif petitioner in his presence. In rebuttal Muhammad Sharif petitioner No.l appeared as R.W.3. He stated that Houses No.54 and 55 were given to him on rent by Nazir Ahmad respondent but subsequently House No.54 was purchased by his son Khalid Ayub respondent, from its owner namely Bashir‑ud‑Din and obtained consent decree from the Court. He produced 2 witnesses namely Jehangir Khan R.W.1 and Muhammad Sadiq R.W.2. They deposed nothing about the existence of relationship between the parties and made statements relatable to the repairs of the houses. Believing the oral and documentary evidence produced by the respondent, the learned Rent Controller vide his order dated 20‑7‑1988 allowed application directing the respondents to hand over the possession of the houses to the applicant/respondent. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 22‑4‑1989, hence this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not questioned the correctness of the impugned orders to the extent of House No.55. He argued that since Khalid Ayub has purchased House No.54 from its owner Bashir‑ud‑Din, therefore, Nazir Ahmad respondent was no more owner of the house; that the Courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence produced by the parties; that the findings of the Courts below are based on misreading/non‑reading of the evidence and that the decree dated 4‑2‑1986 passed by the learned Civil Judge Chishtian negates the claim of the respondent. 4. 1 have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel with care. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with him. After having applied their conscious mind to the oral and documentary evidence produced by the parties, the Courts below have concurrently found that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties did exist. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out any misreading/non‑reading of evidence by the Courts below. The submissions made by the learned counsel require interference with the Courts belows appreciation of evidence which is not desirable in writ jurisdiction. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and default on the part of the petitioners has virtually been admitted by Muhammad Sharif petitioner himself. In his statement, he has stated:‑ The submissions made by the learned counsel that since Nazir Ahmad respondent is not owner of House No.54, therefore, the petitioners are not tenants under him, is without substance, inasmuch as, "landlord" within the meanings of Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance need not enjoy the status of an owner of the property. According to the definition given in clause (c) of section 2 of the aforesaid Ordinance:‑ `Landlord' means any person for time being entitled to receive rent in respect of any building whether on his own or on behalf of any other person, or for the benefit of any other person or as a Trustee, Guardian, receiver, Executor or Administrator for any other person and includes benefit who sublet any building or rented land in the manner hereinafter authorising any person from time to time deriving a title under a landlord." The learned Courts blow have not flouted the provisions of relevant law and have considered the question of the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties in accordance with law. For what has been said above, I do not see any justification to interfere, in exercise of the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court, with the impugned I orders. The petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine. AA./M‑1546/L Petition dismissed.