MUHAMMAD JEHANGIR ARSHAD, J.--- The petitioner who is facing ejectment proceedings before the learned Rent Controller, Rawalpindi Cantt. In ejection petition titled Sajjad Ahmad v. Kanwar Abdul Hayee, is aggrieved of the order, dated 20-3-2006 passed by learned Rent Controller whereby petitioners application for summoning as witness along with record from the office of M.E.O. Rawalpindi, was turned down.
2. The facts in brief are that Sajjad Ahmad, respondent No.2 filed an ejectment petition before the learned Rent Controller respondent No.1 against the petitioner and the petitioner in his written reply besides denying the contents of said ejectment petition also denied the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between him and respondent No.2, by alleging that in fact he was tenant of Mst. Hafeza (mother of respondent No.2). In view of pleadings of the parties, the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues:-- Issues
(1) Whether there exists a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties? OPP
(2) Relief.
The respondent No.2 concluded his evidence on 27-2-2006 and hearing was adjourned to 11-3- 2006 for evidence of the petitioner when the learned ?Residing Officer was on leave, hence the ejectment petition was adjourned to 20-3-2006 and on 20-3-2006 instead of producing his evidence the petitioner filed an application praying for summoning of witnesses (Record Keeper) from the office of M.E.O., Rawalpindi along with record of the disputed property to show that the ownership of the said property had not been transferred in favour of Sajjad Ahmad so far. This application of the petitioner was turned down by the learned Rent Controller through the impugned order dated 20-3-2006.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as the property in dispute has not been transferred in favour of Sajjad Ahmad respondent No.2 by the Government of Pakistan, hence he had no locus standi to file the ejectment petition nor he can be termed as landlord of the same.
4. The above contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is not sustainable in view of the definition of word "landlord" given in section 2(g) of Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963, which reads as under:--- ""Landlord" means any person for the time being entitled to receive rent in respect of any building whether on his own account or on behalf or for the benefit of any other person...."
The above definition of "landlord" does not require that landlord should be owner of the property or should be holding some leasehold rights, etc. The only qualification for becoming landlord in view of the above definition is that he should be entitled to receive rent in respect of any building whether on his own account or on behalf or for the benefit of any other person, etc.
5. The question whether Sajjad Ahmad respondent has got any title in the property other than landlord, is not within the purview of Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963 nor the learned Rent Controller has any jurisdiction to determine the same except existence of relationship of landlord and tenant. Even otherwise, the impugned order being of interim nature, the writ petition is not maintainable in view of the law declared by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case A.F. Ferguson & Co. v. The Sind Labour Court and another PLD 1978 SC 429 and by this Court in Muhammad Saeed v. Mst. Saratul Fatima and another PLD 1978 Lah. 1459. Resultantly, I find no merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed in limine.