1991 PLP 1310 (CLC)

Nemo for Respondents Nos.2 and

3. Date of hearing: 2nd April, 1991. This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 arises out of an application under section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 filed by respondent Nod against the petitioner with respect to a house situate in Hardo Chicharwali Tehsil and District Gujranwala. It was alleged in that application that respondent No.1 had purchased the house in question from its previous owner through a registered deed of sale and inducted the petitioner into the possession of the same as tenant at the rate of ROW. The grounds on which the eviction was sought were personal use, and damage to the property. In the written statement filed by him, the petitioner denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and instead pleaded that the house in question was jointly owned by the respondent and him. It was asserted that he had contributed Rs.7,000 towards the sale price but taking the undue advantage of the illiteracy of the petitioner, the respondent by playing fraud managed to have the sale executed in his name alone. It was denied that the petitioner was a tenant under the respondent.

2. On the pleadings of the parties the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues:‑

(1) Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties? O.P.A. (2) Relief. In support of his case respondent No.1 examined Muhammad Ibrahim as AW.1 and appeared himself as AW

2. The registered sale‑deed with respect to the house was produced as Ex.P.1. In rebuttal the petitioner examined RW.1 Mian Muhammad Rashid, RW.2 Ghulam Mustafa and appeared himself as R.W.3. Copies of I the P.T.I. register maintained by the Excise and Taxation Department were 'produced as Exs.D1 and D2, wherein the petitioner was mentioned as owners.

3. By means, of his order dated 20th April, 1983 the Rent Controller decided issue N.o.1 in favour of respondent No.1 and held the petitioner to be a tenant under him‑On this finding the Rent Controller directed the eviction of the petitioner from the house in dispute observing that there was no need of any further enquiry as default stood admitted. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner went in appeal but without any success as the same was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Gujranwala on 5th January, 1984. Hence this petition.

4. Mr. Muhammad Aslam Khan Buttar, the learned counsel for' the petitioner has argued that there was no evidence to show that the petitioner was a tenant under respondent No.1 and therefore, both the Courts have acted in excess of their jurisdiction in holding the petitioner to be a tenant. The learned counsel further emphasised that the Courts below have taken the view that it was not open to the Rent Controller to go behind the registered sale‑deed and to examine the plea set up by the petitioner regarding fraud and fabrication and that the remedy of the petitioner in this respect was before the Civil Court but when the petitioner had, during the pendency of the ejectment petition, filed a suit, his plaint was rejected on 26‑6‑1983. On the contrary Mr. A.W. Butt, the learned counsel representing the contesting respondent has argued that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the ‑Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge are not liable to be interfered with in the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. It was also pointed out that there was ample evidence on the record to show that respondent No.1 was the owner and landlord of the premises and the orders passed by the Courts below were unexceptionable.

6. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner and is even otherwise borne out from the record that the registered sale‑deed with respect to the property is in the name of resp6ndent No.l. alone. The vendor of the house was examined by respondent No.1 as AWA and he supported his case. That being so the title of the house in favour of respondent No.1 stood fully established. It has been held by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Province of Punjab through Education Secretary and another v. Mufti Abdul Ghani (P L D 1985 S C 1) that a person can claim to be entitled to receive rent and a landlord on account of his ownership of the property, if it is proved beyond any reasonable doubt, in view of section 2 (c) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The oral evidence produced by the petitioner was wholly insufficient to rebut the registered sale‑deed and the statement of the vendor. Both the Courts below were therefore, correct in holding that respondent No.1 was the owner and therefore the landlord of the premises.

7. There is however merit in the grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner that as the Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge had held that they were not in a position to go into the question of alleged fraud and misrepresentation played by respondent No.1 and the petitioner should have recourse to the Civil Court, but the rejection of the plaint in the suit filed by the petitioner has deprived him of his right to do so. It is by now well‑settled that Rent Controller can in a given case decide the question of title and such an adjudication is binding upon the parties and cannot be subjected to scrutiny by the Civil Court except where the Rent Controller or the higher Courts grant permission to the parties to have the dispute finally adjudicated upon by the Civil Court. Keeping in view the circumstances and the observations made by the Rent Controller and the Additional District-Judge, it appears to be in the interest of justice that the petitioner be allowed to seek declaration of his title by filing a civil suit. If such a suit is filed, it shall be decided on its own merits uninfluenced by the observations made in this judgments or the orders of the Courts below. With the above observations the petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. AA./M‑2885/L. Petition dismissed.