' On 21-9-2002, respondent No.2 filed an application for ejectment of the petitioner from a shop located in Islamabad Urban Area. In the application, it .Was stated that the respondent is the landlord while the petitioner is a tenant under him in the said shop. Initially, the shop was leased out subject to payment of Rs.10,000 per month as rent for a period of four years commencing from 1-9-1988, and a lease agreement was drawn up on 29-8-1988. The petitioner committed default after five months of the commencement of lease and in this behalf another agreement was recorded on 16-5-1989 whereby the security amount of Rs.50,000 was adjusted against the due rent. Upon expiry of the said lease, the petitioner became a tenant from month to month basis. In August, 2001, rent was fixed at Rs.15,000 per month. Default in payment of rent was alleged since 31- 8-2001. It was also alleged that the premises is being used for a non-confirming purpose, personal bona fide requirement was also pressed.
2. The petitioner in his written statement proceeded to deny the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties as, according to him, he has purchased the shop vide agreement, dated 7-10- 1994.. A In the same breath, he admitted that he was a tenant from 1-9-1988 to 31-8-1992.
Thereafter, he delivered possession to the respondent but he was requested to remain as tenant for another period of two years and he obliged the respondent and with his permission started the business of restaurant. Thereafter, on 7-10-1994, an agreement was entered into between the parties whereby .The respondent agreed to sell the shop for a consideration of Rs.40,00000 and received a sum of Rs.15,00,000. However, the agreement was not performed and he filed a suit for specified performance which is still pending adjudication. Notwithstanding the said pleadings, the learned trial Court proceeded to frame an issue as to the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties on 20-2-2004. Before framing the said issue, the learned Rent Controller directed the petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent at the rate of R.15;000 per month from September, 2002 till March 2004, before 15-3-2004 and to deposit the, future monthly rent before 15th of every month.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the case reported as Qazi Muhammad Hayat and others. v. Dad Muhammad and others (PLD 2003 Supreme Court 231) contends that the learned Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order for deposit of rent without first determining the question of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties as, according to him,, in presence of the said agreement of sale, the relationship of landlord and tenant does not exist.
4. No cavil can possibly be held to the proposition beingconvassed by the learned counsel with reterence to the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. However, an examination of the pleadings in the ejectment petition, reproduced by me above in some detail, would show that it is in the written reply itself that the petitioner.Entered in the shop as a tenant. Now the only fact which is being made the basis for denial of relationship of landlord and tenant is the said agreement. I find that the petitioner when called upon by the learned trial Court to produce the agreement in original failed to do so. In this file, a photo-copy has been appended as Annexure (A) at pages -12 and 13. I have minutely examined the said agreement with the assistance of the leaned counsel and find that there is not a word therein that the payment of rent shall stand suspended as a result of said agreement. I may further note here that the pleading of the suit for specific performance are also available on record wherein issues have been framed as the execution of the said agreement has been denied. This is a matter which will have to be resolved by the Court trying the suit for specific performance. However, one thing is settled that the mere agreement to sell even if it be assumed to have been executed by the respondent would not bring to an end the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It is in the petitioner's own pleadings that he entered the premises as a tenant and there is no agreement between the parties that the tenancy has ceased or that the obligation of the petitioner to pay rent to his landlord has been put to an end by way of said. Agreement. It is but apparent, that the learned Rent Controller has not opted to read the written statement filed by the petitioner beyond the second preliminary objection wherein a bald statement as to non-existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties has been made whereas in the very next paragraph, he has admitted Without any demur that he.Entered the premises as a tenant under the respondent.
The learned Rent Controller is not at all required by any law to hold a trial on such a frivolous plea which is completely negated by the contents of the written reply itself and the very agreement being relied upon by the petitioner. Reference may be made to the case of Haji Jumma Khan. v.
Haji Zarin Khan (PLD 1999 SC 1101). The order for deposit of rent is accordingly held to be with jurisdiction. However, the learned Rent Controller is directed to frame issues on merits and proceed to decide the application in case the petitioner has complied with the order for deposit of rent. In case of his failure to do so, the learned Rent Controller to proceed in accordance with the provisions of section 17(8) of Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001. Writ Petition is dismissed in limine.
5. A copy of this order be immediately sent to respondent No.1 . revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.