This writ petition is directed against the judgment dated 5-7-2001 passed by the Rent Controller, Rajanpur as well as the judgment dated 1-12-2001 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rajanpur, whereby they dismissed the ejectment petition of the petitioner.
2. The petitioner filed an application before the Rent Controller, Rajanpur for ejectment of Muhammad Yousaf, respondent No.3, from the house situated at Chowk Allabad Tehsil and District Rajanpur under section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, on the ground of default in payment of rent as well as for his personal need. Respondent No.3 denied the existence of any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and also claimed his ownership upon the disputed house by filing written reply. The issue relating to the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant was framed and the parties led their evidence. The learned Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment application vide order dated 17-10-1992. The appeal filed by the petitioner before the learned Additional District Judge was also dismissed on 12-5-1994. Both these orders were challenged by the petitioner before this Court through Writ Petition No.5413 of 1994 which was decided on 25-1-2001 and the said orders were set aside and the case was remanded to the learned Rent Controller, Rajanpur. After the remand, the petitioner himself appeared as A.W.4 and respondent No.3 got recorded the statement of one Noor Muhammad as R.W.5 and he himself appeared as R.W.6. The learned Rent Controller after hearing both the parties dismissed the ejectment petition vide order dated 5-7-2001. The appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rajanpur vie order dated 1-12-2001. Hence this writ petition.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned judgments are against facts and law; that in the earlier round of litigation this Court declared the petitioner as a landlord of the disputed house and directed the learned Rent Controller to order for the deposit of the rent by the respondent/tenant and proceed further in accordance with law. The learned Rent Controller ordered the respondent/tenant to deposit the rent and which is done only after the relationship of landlord and tenant is established, therefore, the learned Courts below erred in law in holding that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties; that there is sufficient evidence on the record to prove that the petitioner is landlord and respondent No.3 tenant of the disputed house. The petitioner while appearing as A.W.1 has categorically stated on oath that the respondent is tenant under him and this statement of the petitioner has further been corroborated by Hazoor Bakhsh A.W.3. There is no rebuttal to this evidence by the other side except the statement of respondent No.3 himself in this respect and this material evidence has not been taken into consideration by the learned Courts below and that the findings of the learned Courts below that there are discrepancies in the statement of the petitioner and in the application for ejectment regarding the time when the disputed house was given on rent are based on misreading and non-reading of the evidence available on the record.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned judgments and has submitted that there is no proof of tenancy as there is no rent deed produced with the ejectment application; that he is in possession of the disputed house as owner since 1980 and is paying property tax.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Admittedly, no written rent deed was executed and the tenancy has been alleged by the petitioner to be oral one. This Court has held vide order dated 25-1-2001 that the petitioner is owner of the disputed house. But the question only arises that whether the status of the respondent about the possession over the disputed property is that of tenant or otherwise. It was ordered by this Court to decide the issue in the light of above observation afresh and pass an appropriate order for the deposit of the rent but the learned trial Court before deciding the issue of landlord and tenant has illegally passed the order for the deposit of rent. Furthermore, the ownership of the petitioner does not in any way establish that he is the landlord. Although the order dated 1-6-2001 has been passed for the deposit of rent before the decision of issue of relationship between the landlord and tenant but it does not mean that the learned trial Court has admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant. Even otherwise this order was passed as per directions of this Court but before passing this order, the learned Rent Controller should have decided the issue of relationship.
The deposit of rent by the respondent in compliance with the order of the learned Rent Controller does not mean that he has admitted relationship of landlord and tenant. Before filing of the petition for ejectment, a suit for recovery of possession was filed by the petitioner on 16-2-1991 in which he had never stated that the respondent was his tenant but when his better statement was recorded by the Court, then he stated that the respondent was his tenant. While appearing as A.W.1 the petitioner himself deposed that he rented out the house at the rate of Rs.400 per month to the respondent. He subsequently deposed that he rented out the house 10/12 years ago. This statement was recorded on 25-6-1992. Hence there is difference between the contents of his application for ejectment and that of his statement.
7. In the circumstances of the case, mere passing of order of deposit of payment and the deposit of rent subsequent to that order by the respondent does not prove the relationship of landlord and tenant and also does not prove that the respondent has acknowledged the tenancy. The conduct of the petitioner is that he does not stand over a firm claim. He has taken different stands through the pleadings in the suit for possession wherein he stated that the house was given to the respondent for residential purpose on temporary basis without any rent whereas while recording his better statement in that suit, he stated that he had given the house to the respondent on rent and while appearing in the petition for ejectment he has never stated in his examination-in-chief that the respondent is his tenant. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed IE with no order as to costs.