' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.--- Learned counsel for both the parties are present and ready with their arguments. Records are available. This F.A.O. Accordingly is being decided as Pacca case.
2. On 17-2-2005, the respondent filed an application for ejectment of the appellant from a residential building located in Lahore Cantonment. According to the contents of the ejectment petition the respondent is the landlord while the appellant is a tenant under him in the said house.
The tenancy is governed by an agreement, dated 15-8-2001, a copy whereof was annexed with the petition. Rent payable was Rs,3,500 per month. The ejectment was sought on the ground of default in the payment of rent with effect from July, 2002, bona fide personal use, impairment of the value and utility of the building, as also nonpayment of utility bills. It was also mentioned in the petition that the respondent has filed a suit for specific performance on the basis of a forged and bogus agreement to sell wherein application for temporary injunction has been dismissed. Reference was also made to an earlier ejectment application wherein the appellant had denied relationship of landlord and tenant. It was also decided in favour of the respondent by a learned Rent Controller, Lahore on 11-9-2004 while the appeal filed against the same order was dismissed as withdrawn by learned Additional District Judge, Lahore on 10-12-2004. Execution petition was however, dismissed for non-production of some certificate from the Cantonment Board, Lahore'.
3. The appellant filed his written statement on 20-10-2005. He proceeded to deny the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. According to him he had entered into an agreement for sale of the property on 3-7-2002 for a consideration of Rs,7,00,000 and Rs,6,00,000 were paid as earnest. He, however, admitted that prior to the said agreement he was a tenant under the respondent. Learned Rent Controller examined the pleadings and heard the learned counsel for the parties on 2-2-2006. On 23-2-2006, learned Rent Controller recorded a finding that relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties. He directed the appellant to deposit arrears of rent amounting to Rs,1,91,434 with effect from July, 2002 to January, 2006 within periodical increase of 10% till 3-3-2006 and to pay future rent before 5th day of each following month. The appellant was directed to produce receipts on 16-3-2006. On this date, the case was adjourned, inter alia, for inspection of said receipts to 30-3-2006. On this date learned Rent Controller was busy elsewhere and the case was adjourned to 6-4-2006 and then to 13-4-2006. On 20-4-2006, learned counsel for the appellant stated that he is not aware as to whether rent has been deposited or not and sought an adjournment. The case was adjourned to 22-4-2006. No receipts were produced and consequently defence was struck off and ejectment order was passed.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that since relationship of landlord and tenant had been denied, learned Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to pass the order for deposit of rent and consequently to strike off the defence of the appellant for noncompliance of the said order.
Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, supports the impugned order with reference to the circumstances reflected on the record.
5. I have gone through the records. I have already noted above that in his written reply the appellant had admitted that he has entered in the house as a tenant under the appellant 'subject to the conditions noted in the rent agreement referred to in the ejectment petition. It was his case that he had entered into an agreement to sell with the respondent and paid him earnest money thereunder and thus his possession became under the said sale agreement. I do not find a copy of the said sale agreement on the file of the learned Rent Controller or of this F.A.O. Learned counsel when confronted, admits that the agreement or its copy has not been placed on the said record. I then called upon him to state as to whether there was a provision in the agreement that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties shall cease to exist. Learned counsel has candidly admitted that there was no such provision. This being so even assuming the plea of appellant to be correct, relationship of landlord and tenant never ceased to exist and as such the learned Rent A Controller competently passed the order in terms of section 17.8 of Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963. There is no denial that the order was not complied with and of course no cause shown for the said noncompliance. This being so, the impugned order directing the appellant to deliver possession of the house to the respondent does not suffer from any error of law or for that matter of fact.
6. The F.A.O. Accordingly is dismissed. The parties are left to IB bear their own costs. Trial Court records be remitted back immediately.