' SH. AZMAT SAEED, J.--- This writ petition calls in question the validity of an order, dated 26-5-2005 whereby, the Rent Controller, Shahpur District Sargodha adjourned the proceedings arising from petitioner's ejectment petition until the conclusion of the suit for declaration tiled by respondent Razia Begum with regard to the property/premises, subject-matter of the ejectment petition.
2. Petitioner filed an ejectment petition in terms of section 13 of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 seeking respondents eviction, inter alia, on the grounds of personal need and default in the payment of rent. Contemporaneously, respondent No,1 also filed a civil suit in respect of the said property seeking a declaration that she was the owner in possession of the said property on the basis of oral sale.
3. In the ejectment petition, obviously the respondent denied the relationship of landlord and tenant, whereupon, the Rent Controller by means of impugned order proceeded to adjourn the case until the final outcome of the suit for declaration filed against the petitioner.
4. Counsel for the parties has been heard and the record appended with this petition perused. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order is illegal and without lawful authority, inasmuch as, the learned Rent Lontroller has abdicated his jurisdiction in the matter. It is further submitted that proceedings in the matter could not be adjourned indefinitely and the Rent Controller was bound to decide the issue arising therefrom including the crucial issue with reference to relationship of landlord and tenant. Further asserts that civil suit filed by respondent Razia Begum is based on mala fide without any legal and factual basis. In order to substantiate his contentions, learned counsel placed reliance on Wajid Ali Khan v. Sheikh Murtaza Alil and 2 others 2003 SCM R 1416; Mst. Bor Bibi and others v. Abdul Qadir and others 1996 SCM R 877 and Mrs. Anita Haroon v. Mst. Sughran Bibi and another 2000 SCM R 716.
5. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents says that question of title cannot be decided by the Rent Controller and could only be adjudicated upon by the civil Court, hence, proceedings in the ejectment petition, were rightly adjourned sine a die. In support of his contentions, learned counsel referred to Province of Punjab through Education Secretary and another v. Mufti Abdul Ghani PLD 1985 SC 1 and Rehmat Ullah v. Ali Muhammad and another 1983 SCM R 1064.
6. The crucial question emerging from the facts and circumstance of the case requiring determination is the contention of the respondent that if the title of the alleged landlord is disputed by the alleged tenant and the matter is sub judice before the Civil Court, the ejectment proceedings must be stayed until the adjudication of the civil suit.
7. A careful examination of the judgments of the apex Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents makes it clear and obvious that the same do not advance the contentions reiterated on behalf of the respondents. With reference to case reported as PLD 1985 SC 1 (supra), the property involved in litigation before the Rent Controller was admittedly an evacuee property and the appellant therein viz. The Province of Punjab was running a school. Respondents therein had claimed the transfer of the property and the apex Court decided the list in favour of the appellant, and the relevant concluding portion is reproduced hereunder:- "Before closing this judgment it needs to be observed that the material being sufficient and in view of the position taken by the parties, we have decided the necessary questions and did not find it essential in the circumstances of the case to remand the case to the learned Rent Controller who had failed to consider the question of ownership inter alias on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to do so."
8. Whereas, in the case reported as 1983 SCM R 1064 ejectment petition was filed, wherein respondent denying the relationship of landlord and tenant had claimed the title of the property on the basis of sale-deed in his favour. The Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment petition holding that relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist. On appeal it was held that the alleged tenant should seek his remedy before the Civil Court. In writ petition, the order of the appellate authority was upheld and writ petition was dismissed by this Court. Subsequently, the apex Court restored the order of the Rent Controller and the following observations are quoted as under:- "But lot would depend in these situations whether or not the plea about title is not frivolous and vexatious. A non-genuine party might attempt to get a favourable decision by default of other before the Controller and avoid such a daring offer for a full-fledged regular Civil Court trial."
9. In the case reported as PLD 1991 SC 242 at page 245 it was held as under:-- "Be that as it may, in some recent judgments this Court has taken the view that in cases like the present one, where the sale agreement or any other transaction relied upon by a tenant is seriously and bona . Fide disputed by the landlord, the appellant/tenant cannot be allowed to retain the possession during the litigation; where he continues do deny the ownership of the landlord who had inducted him as a tenant, without any condition and/or reservation. It has been ruled that in such cases although the tenant has a right to adduce evidence and take a short time for that purpose to remain in occupation despite having set up a hostile title which is denied by the landlord; but on the well-known bar of estoppel in this behalf, he (the tenant) cannot be permitted to remain in occupation and fight the litigation for long time---even for decades. In this case it is more than a decade that the appellants have been able to keep the possession on a claim which the landlord asserts is false. Accordingly, as held in those cases in fairness to both sides, while the tenant is at liberty to prosecute the litigation wherein he should try to establish his claim but it should not be at the cost of landlord/owner. It should be at the cost of himself and he must vacate---though of course he would be entitled to an easy and free entry as soon as he finally succeeds in establishing his title against his own landlord."
10. In view of what has been enumerated (ibid), this Court has no hesitation in holding that the law as laid down by the apex Court is not that merely because a civil suit has been filed by the alleged tenant with reference to the title of property/premises in question, the Rent Controller automatically must stay the proceedings till the decision of the civil suit especially where such claim is disputed bona fide.
11. In the instant case petitioner claims that he possesses a sale-deed while respondents are basing their claim on the basis of an oral sale. Undisputedly, in the civil suit, the Court seized of the matter, held that respondents even did not have a prima facie arguable case, and thus, dismissed and in my view rightly so, respondents application for the grant of temporary injunction. Thus, it would be appropriate that ejectment proceedings should continue in the normal course and the Rent Controller should decide the vital issue as to whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists.
For the foregoing facts and reasons, it is a fit case for interference and invalidation of the impugned order. Accordingly, by accepting this writ petition, I set aside the same and remand the case to B the Rent Controller with direction to proceed with the ejectment petition and to decide it expeditiously in line with observation enumerated (ibid).