P L D 2006 Lahore 793 (PLP)

MUHAMMAD ARSHAD JEHANGIR, J.

The petitioner seeks quashment of order dated 12-12-2005 passed by learned Rent Controller whereby ejectment petition filed by respondents Nos.3 and 4 was allowed directing ejectment of the petitioner from the premises in question and also the order dated 20-1-2006 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Multan whereby the appeal of the petitioner against the order of his ejectment, was also dismissed.

2. The facts in brief are that petitioner entered into an agreement to sell about the demised property with respondents Nos. 3 and 4 through agreement dated 22-7-2002, whereby the petitioner agreed to purchase the said premises for the consideration of Rs.12,00,

000. The respondents received Rs.2,00,000 from the petitioner at the time of execution of the said agreement and it was further agreed between the parties that if the remaining amount of Rs.10,00,000 was not paid at the time of registration of the sale-deed till 30-9-2002, the total consideration amount would come to Rs.11,00,

000. It was also agreed between the parties that till completion of the sale-deed the petitioner would continue paying Rs.2,500 as monthly rent for the premises and that rent would automatically stand increased after every year. It so happened that petitioner failed to pay the rent of the premises therefore, respondents Nos. 3 and 4 filed ejectment petition against the petitioner alleging that as the petitioner was a defaulter since August, 2002 to January, 2004 and thus an amount of Rs.45,000 was outstanding against him, as such he was liable to be ejected from the premises. The petitioner on the other hand filed reply to the said ejectment petition and took the plea that as the suit for specific performance of agreement to sell was pending between the parties in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Mutlan, hence the said application was not maintainable. The petitioner further denied the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The learned Rent Controller framed the following preliminary issue:- (1) Whether the relationship of tenant and landlord exists between the parties or not? O.P. Parties. (2) Relief. After recording evidence of the parties and keeping in view the admission of the petitioner about execution of agreement to sell as well as default in payment of rent, the learned Rent Controller proceeded to accept the said application vide order dated 12-12-2005 directing the petitioner to hand over vacant possession of the disputed premises to respondents Nos. 3 and 4 within thirty days and also to pay the previous rent at the rate of Rs.2,500 per month from August, 2002 till the decision of the petition. Against the said order of the learned Rent Controller the appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 20-6-2006, hence this Writ Petition.

3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the pendency of the suit for specific performance of agreement to sell and that relationship between the parties being not that of a landlord and tenant, neither the learned Rent Controller was justified in passing the ejectment order against the petitioner nor his appeal could validly be dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the private respondents while placing reliance on the case Iqbal and 6 others v. Mst. Rabia Bibi and another PLD 1991 SC 242 and Wajid Ali Khan v. Sheikh Murtaza Ali and 2 others 2003 SCMR 1416 argued that as it was specifically agreed between the parties in the agreement to sell that petitioner would continue paying the rent till the execution of sale deed, hence, neither the petitioner could refuse to pay rent nor the pendency of suit for specific performance was an impediment in the way of respondents for filing ejection petition seeking ejectment of the petitioner and that the question of pendency of suit for specific performance of contract in the civil Court has no nexus with this petition which shall be decided by the learned civil Court on its own merits.

5. I have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record with their assistance.

6. A perusal of attested copy of agreement to sell Exh.A.-2 leaves no doubt or ambiguity that it was expressly agreed between the parties as under: -- Urdu Para Page 795 which not only established the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties till the sale-deed is executed but also binds the petitioner to pay the rent as agreed. The petitioner in his reply to the ejectment petition also admitted that he was not liable to pay any rent to the respondent. In this view of the matter the learned Rent Controller as well as the learned Additional District Judge did not fall into any illegally by declaring the petitioner as defaulter and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in both the cited judgments, neither pendency of suit for specific performance was any impediment in the institution of ejectment petition nor the agreement to sell between the parties could debar the learned Rent Controller from holding the petitioner as defaulter on the basis of his own admission.

6. The upshot of above discussion is that this writ petition has got no force and is dismissed in limine. However, the petitioner is allowed time till 2-9-2006 to vacate the premises in question and deliver its possession to respondents.

7. Needless to point out that findings/observations recorded in the ejectment order shall be confined to the extent they relate to the question of declaring the petitioner as defaulter as a tenant and shall have no bearing on the findings of the learned civil Court about enforcement of the agreement to sell and suit filed by the petitioner for specific performance of agreement to sell shall be decided on its own merits and keeping in view the evidence to be led by the parties. S.M.B./A-162/L Order accordingly.