Ejectment Proceedings

Briefly, the petitioner was a tenant of respondent No.1 under a rent agreement for five years at Rs.13,000/- per month with 10% annual increase, with security paid in advance; the landlord filed ejectment under S.19, Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 on grounds including expiry of tenancy and rent default, and although the tenant sought leave to contest asserting Rs.3,75,000/- security was agreed to be adjusted in rent (with Rs.1,95,000/- still outstanding), the Rent Tribunal refused leave and ordered eviction, which was upheld in appeal, leading to the filing of present constitutional petition by the tenant

Held: Upon examination of leave to contest it clearly evinced that in the light of its averments, it was disclosing sufficient grounds for production of oral evidence

In terms of S.2(b) of the Act, 2009, Rent Tribunal was obliged to pass an order with respect to dispute relating to security as well as arrears of rent, as canvassed in the ejectment application and application for leave to contest so as to culminate the proceedings

In view of clear and unequivocal mandate of law, the Special Judge (Rent) had abdicated its jurisdiction which was not permissible

The observations, so recorded, by the Rent Tribunal itself reflected that the Special Judge (Rent) did not conclude the proceedings and the order, so passed, was not final

Leave to contest filed by the petitioner was accepted

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Jurisdiction of High Court is primarily confined to addressing those decisions which, prima facie, appear to have engendered significant legal errors, culminating in a miscarriage of justice

Appellate Court retains the ultimate authority in the hierarchy of rent-related matters, and when both rent authorities have concurrent findings, the scope for intervention is considerably circumscribed.

Jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution cannot be invoked as substitute of another appeal against the order of the Appellate Court

Therefore, mere fact that upon perusal of evidence there exists possibility of a different view would never be sufficient to seek concurrent findings disturbed by invoking constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court

Constitutional Petition was dismissed.

Under the substituted provision, any party not being judgment-debtor against whom order is made for restoration of possession in terms of O. XXI, R. 101 was permitted to institute a suit to establish rights to claim possession of the property

This position stood changed after the above substitution

Now all the questions arising as to title, right, interest in or possession of immovable property are required to be adjudicated by the Executing Court

The orders passed, in this regard, become conclusive and no separate suit is permitted

The legislature has used the words "adjudicate upon" and "determined by the Court" besides restricting separate suit

Any person other than judgment-debtor dispossessed from immovable property by decree holder, can make an application under O. XXI R. 100 of C.P.C., which then requires investigation in terms of O. XXI R. 100(2) of C.P.C.

Order XXI R. 100 of C.P.C. is to be read with Rules 101 and 103 of Order XXI of C.P.C.

Order XXI R. 101 of C.P.C. provides that the Court can make the order when satisfied that the applicant was in possession on his own account or on account of some person other than judgment-debtor

The scheme of law is such that it confers full jurisdiction upon the Executing Court to decide the issues involved therein.

While adjudicating objection application of the tenant the court was obligated to frame issues and record evidence in order to resolve disputes raised by the tenant

Petitioner (landlord) filed an ejectment petition against respondent No.2 (tenant) regarding the shop in question resulting in passing of eviction order

Respondent No.2/tenant claimed to be a tenant of petitioner with respect to shop No.986-A and raised grievance that in execution of eviction order the possession of his rented premises was taken, whereas, eviction order was passed with respect to a different shop bearing No. 986 against another person 'MS'

Tenant's objection application filed under O. XXI, R. 100, C.P.C. was allowed by the Rent Controller directing restoration of possession

Held: It was an imperative aspect of the matter that such order was passed without proper investigation, framing of issues, or recording of evidence

Petitioner/landlord was admittedly the owner of two shops having No. 986 and 986-A

He had filed ejectment petition against another person 'MS'

As per stance of the petitioner/landlord, he rented out property measuring 32x13 sq. ft. to one 'MS', after removing partition wall between two adjacent shops

The number of shop given in eviction petition was No. 986, however, the rent agreement was with respect to shop No. 986-A, which was relied upon

The agreement clearly stipulated that the property subject of rent agreement was measuring 32x13 sq. ft

The number of property mentioned therein was No. 986-A

Somehow, respondent No.2/tenant who instituted the objection application under O. XXI R. 100 of C.P.C., previously approached the Rent Controller with an application claiming that petitioner/landlord had executed a rent agreement in his favour

He claimed that he was tenant in the shop which was subject of eviction-petition and sought to be impleaded in the array of parties

This application, under O. I, R. 10 of C.P.C. was rejected

Then respondent No.2/tenant never raised any challenge to the said order until the conclusion of trial

It was admitted position that 'MS' maintained in ejectment proceedings that he was tenant of shops subject to eviction proceeding until 13.08.2000 and then respondent No.2/tenant obtained the same shops on rent under separate arrangement

Thereafter, 'MS' stopped pursuing the proceeding and he was proceeded ex-parte

Statements of three witnesses were recorded in support of the stance of ejectment petitioner

These statements went un-rebutted as they were never cross-examined

Finally, the ejectment-petition was allowed

The disputes raised by respondent No.2/tenant in his objection filed under O. XXI, R. 100 of C.P.C. clearly involved such questions which should not have been resolved in his favour in a summary manner

The impugned order without due investigation and proper exercise of jurisdiction could cause miscarriage of justice

The case was remanded to the Rent Controller for decision afresh, after framing relevant issues and permitting the parties to lead their evidence

The impugned order and the subsequent orders passed by Rent Controller were set-aside, in circumstances.

Where a person enters upon a premises as a tenant under one of the co-sharer of the property, he continues to be a tenant till such time either the tenancy is terminated by an express agreement between the landlord and tenant or he surrenders the possession

However, if during the subsistence of tenancy, a tenant purchases a share from a co-owner, his status as a tenant does not cease to exist

Tenant during subsistence of tenancy, cannot question title of landlord as it stood at commencement of tenancy

If tenant desires to question, he must first surrender possession to landlord and then dispute his title

Person entering premises as tenant can not be permitted to deny that status as estoppel under Art. 115 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, would operate and principle "once a tenant always a tenant" would apply

Once relationship of tenancy was proved, at once Art. 115 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 would come into play.

Execution of 'sale agreement' was with consent of parties whereby both of them from their conduct proved termination of earlier rent agreement

Respondent/landlady herself accepted earlier paid advance monthly rent as part of sale consideration

Respondent/ landlady also received/accepted other amount as part of sale consideration

Such conduct and attitude of respondent/landlady affirmed execution of a valid sale agreement

Purchaser could only demand complete and perfect title in his favour by making final payment or least readiness of making such payment

High Court declared that possession of petitioner/tenant over premises was within the capacity of buyer and not that of 'tenant'

High Court set aside findings of two courts below regarding relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties as the same were not in accordance with law and ejectment application was dismissed

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Rent Controller was not a Civil Judge and was not mandated by the law to determine the question of title/ownership of property assuming the role of Civil Judge.

Appeal filed by petitioner was dismissed earlier thereafter on directions of High Court, application for additional evidence was also decided against him

Validity

Additional evidence could not be recorded unless provisions of O. XLI, R. 27, C.P.C. were attracted

Additional evidence could be allowed only where; (i) Trial Court had improperly refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted; (ii) when the appellate court required such document or witness and could not pronounce judgment without additional evidence; and (iii) when the appellate court required such evidence for any other substantial cause

No such eventuality was available as main appeal of petitioner had already been dismissed by an earlier order and High Court in remanding the order, directing Lower Appellate Court to decide application of petitioner for production of additional evidence along with main appeal

Lower Appellate Court had rightly come to the conclusion and dismissed application through a well-reasoned order

High Court declined to interfere in order passed by Lower Appellate Court as there was no illegality or perversity in same

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Rules making power, by virtue of S.122(2) of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Land Revenue Act, 1967, was vested in the Board of Revenue which had not been exercised nor invoked by Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Board of Revenue to frame Rules for the purpose of S.122 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Land Revenue Act, 1967

In absence of such Rules, in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, laws of other Province, not adopted by any statutory instrument, could not be applied

Order passed by Revenue authorities for eviction of petitioners and handing over possession to respondents was illegal and without jurisdiction, being not backed by any law and Rules

High Court set aside the orders passed, proceedings initiated and action taken without jurisdiction, as the same was amenable to judicial review under Constitutional jurisdiction

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Appeal was dismissed in limine on the ground that appeal against interlocutory order of Rent Controller was not maintainable

Validity

Neither order passed on application under O. I, R. 10, C.P.C. was appealable nor provisions of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 were applicable to the proceedings before Rent Controller

Impugned order passed by the Appellate Court was not open to exception through constitutional petition

Petitioner had no locus standi to be impleaded in the case on the basis of her claim of ownership and possession

Petitioner had already filed a civil suit seeking declaration with regard to her rights of ownership and possession

Constitutional petition was not maintainable as petitioner had already availed alternate remedy of a civil suit

Object of application for impleadment of petitioner was to further delay eviction proceedings against her son

Constitutional petition, being devoid of merit, was dismissed, in circumstances.

High Court could not appreciate evidence in such matters while exercising constitutional jurisdiction where concurrent findings of facts had been recorded by the courts below

Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court being discretionary was limited and same was not plenary in nature

Disputed questions of fact could not be agitated under constitutional jurisdiction.

Landlord at least had to state in his testimony on oath before the Rent Controller, the basic facts wherefrom the court would be able to ascertain and assess in an objective manners that the demand for the ejectment of the tenant from the suit property was based on honesty and with good intention

No doubt, the landlord had a superior right of possession and use of his property as against the tenant, but the tenant could also not be deprived of his legal business and could not be shunted out from the suit premises, on mere assertion of the landlord

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 was not meant to oust the tenant from rented property, merely on the whims and wishes of the landlord

Ordinance provided protection to the tenant, to the effect that until and unless the landlord proved the recognized grounds for ejectment, landlord was not entitled to seek ejectment of his tenant.

Landlord had not placed an iota of evidence, demonstrating the dire personal need of the suit premises or sanction of the site plan for demolition and reconstruction of the property in dispute

In case of ejectment of the tenant, on the ground of reconstruction of building and bona fide personal need, it was obligatory on the landlord to obtain necessary sanction for reconstruction or erection, from the relevant authorities, at the time of filing the eviction petition or at least during its pendency, but in the present case, the landlord had failed to brought any supporting document providing his bona fide personal need

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Landlord could file application before the Rent Controller for ejectment of tenant, if he required the property in good faith for his own use or for the use of his children, who were not occupying any such property suitable for his/their need, in the same urban area

Conditions stated in S.13(3)(a) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 are sine qua non and must exist before the landlord becomes entitled to the ejectment of tenant.

Petitioner on the same ground had filed the ejectment petition but the facts qua rejection of previous petition and then dismissal of appeal and Constitutional petition were not disclosed in the present ejectment petition

Not only the cause of action in favour of the landlord had diminished, rather his "good faith" also seriously impaired

Conduct of the landlord would be a determining factor for his good faith in demanding the eviction of tenant

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Property was situated within the cantonment limits but ejectment proceedings were initiated under Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009

Ejectment petition was accepted concurrently

Validity

Demised shop was located within the limits of Cantonment Board

Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 had no application to the facts of present case nor Rent Tribunal appointed under the said Act had any jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter

Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 had been promulgated for the control of rent of buildings within the limits of cantonment area

Ejectment petition could be filed in the court of Rent Controller appointed under the provisions of Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 and not in the court of Rent Tribunal appointed under Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009

Rent Tribunal had illegally assumed jurisdiction in the present case and he had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the ejectment petition

Findings of Rent Tribunal were misconceived and based upon wrong assumption of law

Sections 3 & 17 (11) of Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 had no relevance in the present case as matter was between two individuals

Landlord could file ejectment petition in the court of Rent Controller, Cantonment Board under S.17 of the said Act

Impugned judgments passed by both the courts below were without jurisdiction and had been passed without any lawful authority which were set aside

Constitutional petition was accepted in circumstances.

Person claiming to be impleaded as party on the ground that he had purchased rented property was not necessary party to be impleaded in rent proceedings.

Tenant's objection was that ejectment petition filed on 10-3-2010 was not maintainable due to non-bringing of tenancy agreement by landlord in conformity with provisions of S.8 of Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009

Decision of ejectment petition on 17-4-2010 by Rent Tribunal prior to expiry of grace period

Validity

Tribunal had decided ejectment petition much prior to expiry of grace period (12-11-201) provided under S.8 of Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009

High Court repelled the objection.

Ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller was set aside by Appellate Court while holding that landlord had failed to prove personal need

Contention was that statement of landlord on oath was enough to prove that requirement of the landlord was bona fide

Validity

Landlords had sold their ancestral house at place "N", they were permanently residing at place "K" for the last many years

Landlords had not been able to show that they would move to place "N" in near future when the property in question was located

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Landlord in earlier round of litigation sought eviction of tenant on the ground that he needed property for construction of house on the first floor but in the present case the stance was changed and it was stated that a medical consultancy centre would be built on the shops

Validity

First case was filed on the ground of personal bona fide use of shops, however, in the second round of litigation, the stance had been changed and the shops were sought for re-construction

Grounds of personal need and reconstruction of house taken by landlord were contradictory to each other

Judgment of Appellate Court reversing the ejectment order of Trial Court was upheld.

Rent Controller decided the issue in favour of the landlord while Appellate Court reversed the same and decided in favour of tenant

Judgment of Appellate Court would be preferred unless conclusions drawn by Appellate Court were against the record or suffered from non-reading or misreading of evidence

Effect

High Court while exercising constitutional jurisdiction could not sit as a court of appeal on question of fact and could not in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction interfere merely on the ground that a different view on the basis of same evidence was possible

Judgment of Appellate Court did not suffer from any illegality, irregularity, non-reading or mis-reading of the evidence on record

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Fixation of fair rent was not automatic but was to be fixed by Rent Controller on an application by the landlord or the tenant, on the basis of factors mentioned in clauses (a) to (d) of S.8 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979

In the present case, neither any application was filed by the landlord for fixation of fair rent nor any order had been passed by the Rent Controller therefor

No default in payment of rent was committed by the tenant.

Even if on the basis of same evidence another view of the matter was possible, that would not justify exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction

Invoking Constitutional jurisdiction under Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 to be discouraged by High Court, otherwise the very purpose and object of expeditious disposal of such cases through the court of Rent Controller and providing right of only one appeal would be frustrated.

Respondent landlord had sought eviction of petitioner on the ground of his personal bona fide need, which could only be decided on the basis of evidence

Both the parties had led the evidence in support of their contentions and both the courts below after considering and discussing the evidence thoroughly had come to concurrent findings that respondent had made out his case of requiring the premises in question for his personal bona fide use

High Court, in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction, in such a case was not supposed to interfere in the concurrent findings on the controversial questions of facts based on evidence even if such findings were erroneous.

Property was still mutated in the name of deceased mother but the same shall not disentitle son from his claim to be the owner of property

Under Muslim law a presumptive heir on death of his predecessor acquires all rights in the property by operation of law and did not need any letter of administration for exercising the property rights in respect of property so inherited.

High Court under Art.199 of the Constitution had no jurisdiction to serve purpose of second appeal against impugned orders

High Court would not embark upon re-examination of evidence to evaluate merits of impugned orders.

Denial of relationship of landlord and tenant between parites without any concrete proof would not be sufficient.

Landlord, if unable to give evidence for genuine reasons, could appoint a person for such purpose.

Constitutional jurisdiction was very much limited and confined only to ascertain whether Appellate Court had flouted statutory provisions or failed to follow relevant law.

Such defaulter would not be entitled for any relief.

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court could not be invoked to substitute another appeal against such order, Appellate Court being a final authority under Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979.

Presumption of truth would attach to such proceedings carried out by Rent Controller.

Denial of relationship of landlord and tenant by wife claiming to be owner of land underneath demised premises purchased and built with her finances by husband, who sold the same to appellant later on

Proof

Evidence on record showed that husband had left suit premises, while wife was still in its possession prior to its sale by husband to appellant

Husband had never appeared in court to rebut sale of suit premises to appellant and contest ejectment proceedings

Appellant in addition to ownership had to prove his status of landlord and wife and husband to be his tenants in suit premises

As per definitions of "landlord" and "tenant" contained in S.2 of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, entitlement of a person to receive rent of a premises would be deciding factor about his status of being a landlord or otherwise

Right of tenancy being an heritable asset would devolve on wife and children of a tenant only in case of his death, but not during his life time

Only a person liable to pay rent would become a tenant and his mere physical possession would be immaterial as premises could be occupied by a person as licensee or trespasser

Appellant as per his own assertion derived status of landlord after purchase of suit premises from husband, but wife had ipso facto not become tenant of subsequent owner/petitioner as she was claiming to be in its possession in her own right of ownership

Appellant had failed to discharge burden to prove the wife to be his tenant by leading evidence regarding any rent agreed between them or its payment to him or its demand by him and refusal by her or service of any notice upon her demanding its payment

None of appellant's witnesses had witnessed any payment of rent to him by wife or her refusal to pay rent

Wife had filed suit for declaration of her title and cancellation of sale mutation effected in favour of appellant by husband

Appellant must have first got his title declared from a competent court, and then might have filed ejectment petition against wife

Ejectment petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Order of Tribunal dismissing ejectment petition set aside by Appellate Court remanding case to Rent Tribunal for its decision afresh after having compliance of S. 9(b) of Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009

Validity

Tribunal after having case on its file and before assuming jurisdiction had to seek compliance of S.9(b) by directing one of parties to deposit penalty in terms thereof

Tribunal in case of non-compliance of such order would not have jurisdiction to enter ejectment petition

Intention of law had never been to non-suit a party without affording him an opportunity to comply with provision of law

Appellate Court in remanding case had advanced cause of justice in its true spirit

High Court dismissed constitutional petition in circumstances.

Rent Controller being a tribunal of limited jurisdiction could not decide question of title.

Constitutional petition was not maintainable.

Denial of relationship of landlord and tenant between parties on ground of pendency of tenant's suit for specific performance of unregistered sale agreement executed by landlord

Validity

Tenant could not resist title of landlord prior to passing of decree in his favour in suit for specific performance

Ejectment proceedings would continue in normal course in presence of such agreement or pendency of such suit and Rent Controller could decide question of relationship being factual controversy after considering evidence on record

When denial of relationship was contumacious, then Rent Controller had power to straightaway pass ejectment order without recording evidence on other grounds such as personal need or violation of terms of tenancy agreement

Status of a tenant inducted in possession of premises by owner/landlord under tenancy agreement would not be altered, If he entered into sale transaction with owner thereof

Tenant would be bound to surrender possession of demised premises to landlord in compliance of order of Rent Controller.

Consequences of default in payment of rent either occurred before filing of ejectment application or after passing of order under S.24 of Punjab Rented Premises Ordinance, 2007, were identical-Default in former case had to be proved by evidence, while in latter case same stands proved from record of proceedings

Eviction of tenant could be ordered in both such cases

In order to/characterize a default to be a wilful default, same had to be intention, deliberate, calculated and conscious with full knowledge of its consequences

Default in payment of rent occasioned on account of ignorance, accident or compulsion beyond control could not be termed 'wilful'

Person not well versed with technicalities of law could easily misconceive the order

Such delay of one day could not be termed as wilful default

High Court set aside impugned order and directed Rent Tribunal to decide ejectment application on merits.

Person in occupation of an immovable property would be bound to establish his capacity in which he was occupying same.

Counsel for the applicant/tenant stated that premises in question belonged to the Evacuee Trust Property Board and vested in the Federal Government, Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to proceed with the matter on merits; and that being a condition precedent to the exercise of the jurisdiction, the same ought to have been decided, in any case in the first place

Counsel for appellant had referred to S.3 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, according to which the Ordinance, did not apply to the premises, which was owned by the Federal Government and had ousted the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller

Impugned order was set aside and matter was remanded to the Rent Controller to decide the objection after notice and hearing the parties by a speaking order.

Rent Controller relied upon the evidence of witnesses who were party in eviction applications and were trying to take benefit of their own statements by appearing as witnesses in the proceedings

Validity

Statements of such witnesses were inadmissible against landlord.

Respondent/ tenant during pendency of ejectment petition filed application for summoning of one as a witness on his behalf

Application of tenant having been rejected by the Rent Controller, tenant filed appeal before Appellate Court and said court without attending to the question of maintainability of appeal, accepted the same and directed the Rent Controller to record the statement of witness sought to be summoned

Under second proviso to S.15 of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, no appeal against interlocutory order passed by the Rent Controller could be filed

Order rejecting application of tenant being interlocutory in nature, same was not open to challenge in appeal

Explanation of Appellate Court that keeping in view the guidelines given by Superior Courts for disposal of case on merits, it had proceeded to dispose of the appeal as a revision, again was an illegality as orders passed under West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, were not open to challenge through revision petitions, more particularly when appeal against that order was specifically barred

Order passed by the Appellate Court was declared to be without lawful authority and jurisdiction and was struck down.

Respondents had filed an application for placing on record certain documents in the shape of additional evidence in appeal

Both the parties had agreed that impugned judgments could be set aside and the Rent Controller be ordered to decide application of respondents for additional evidence; and then decide the ejectment petition afresh within a shortest period

Request of both the parties being reasonable, with the consent of both the parties, impugned orders were set aside

Ejectment petition was remanded to Rent Controller with the direction that respondent would file an application for additional evidence.

Question of tenancy carrying certain advantages must be proved by evidence of a very high order and could not be proved by mere oral assertion

Mere oral assertion of applicant, in absence of title to premises, would not prove tenancy.

Petitioner's mother was previously co-owner in the premises and petitioner filed application for impleading him as party to ejectment proceedings and to determine title of suit property

Rent Controller as well as Lower Appellate Court concurrently dismissed application and appeal. filed by petitioner

Validity

If such application of petitioner was allowed it would have amounted to enlarge scope of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979

Jurisdiction of Rent Controller was limited and Rent Controller could not be granted jurisdiction to hold regular trial as was available to Civil Court

Issues raised by petitioner in his application pertaining to dispute with regard to title and validity of gift alleged to have been made in his favour by mother of petitioner who was previously co-owner of the property, was outside the purview of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, and Rent Controller could not give any finding on such issues

Rent Controller in law could not adjudicate issue of validity of gift in favour of petitioner as against landlords nor could reopen issue of compromise decree which had attained finality way back

Orders passed by both the Courts below were in accordance with law and there was no legal infirmity which could warrant interference of High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction

Petition was dismissed in limine.

Application for awarding punishment to respondent for having committed perjury by making false statement against petitioner during such proceedings

Validity

Provision of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 did not find mention of S.476, Cr.P.C. except S.480, Cr.P.C. mentioned in S.23 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979

Offence of giving false evidence defined in S.193, P.P.C. fell within category of offences falling under Ss.476 and 195, Cr.P.C.

Sections 175, 178, 179, 180 and 228, P.P.C., falling under category of S.480, Cr.P.C. would not cover allegation of petitioner

Legislature had intentionally avoided to apply S.476, Cr.P.C. to proceedings under Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979

Such application was dismissed in circumstances.

Rent Controller, without first deciding issue of existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, proceeded to record the evidence of landlord/petitioner, but did not record the statement of respondent/tenant

Counsel for petitioner, had conceded that Rent Controller had to be directed to decide the issue about the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties at the first instance

Counsel for respondent/tenant had also conceded that Rent Controller should have first decided the application filed by the petitioner under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C. to resolve the question of jurisdiction in connection with the cause of action accrued to the landlord against the tenant by way of filing ejectment application

Counsel for petitioner did not press the application which was disposed of along with listed application with the direction to the Rent Controller to decide the application filed by the petitioner under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C. at the first instance before proceeding to record the evidence of tenant for materially resolving the question of jurisdiction.