' IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, J.--- This appeal under section 24 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act (XI of 1963), (hereinafter called the Act) is directed against judgment and order, dated 29-8-2002, passed by learned Additional Controller of Rents, Peshawar, whereby application of the appellant for ejectment of the respondent, from suit premises, was dismissed.
2. In brief, the factual background of the case is that Tariq Javed appellant moved an application under section 17 of the Act, before Controller of Rents Peshawar, seeking eviction of Khawaja Muhammad Adil Younas, respondent from the property in question i,e, a hall measuring 22'-7" x 32'-0" on 1st floor and an area measuring 22'-7" x 32'-0" on the ground floor of the building, known as Pakistan Auto Store building situated at 20 Saddar Road, Peshawar Cantt., on the grounds of default in payment of rent since March, 1995, reconstruction and altercations in the property without permission and consent of the appellant. It was averred that appellant was owner of suit property and respondent was occupying the same as tenant, vide rent deed dated 25-10-1994, on payment of rent at the rate of Rs,9,000 p.m. And that respondent has committed default in payment of rent and has made alteration/change in suit property, which necessitated the filing of an ejectment petition.
3. The respondent appeared in Court and resisted the application mainly on the ground that the petitioners and respondent have got no relationship of landlord and tenant as the respondent has obtained possession of the property in question as a mortgagee for the period of ten years and thus, the Court has got no jurisdiction to proceed with the case. The following preliminary issue was framed for trial:--- "Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties?
Relief."
4. After recording such evidence as the parties wished to adduce, learned Additional Controller of Rents, Peshawar, by his order, dated 29-8-2002, dismissed the application holding that existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties has not been proved and the question of mortgage falls outside the jurisdiction of the Court.
5. Mr. Naveed Maqsood, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant, contended that impugned judgment and order of learned Additional Rent Controller, is laconic and suffers from the vice of misreading and non-reading of the evidence. The learned counsel reiterated that sufficient material was brought on record to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, which has been excluded out of consideration without any valid justification, which has resulted in manifest injustice. To augment the contentions, reliance has been placed on Manzoor Hussain and 2 others v. Abdul Aziz and 2 others 2000 YLR 2634 (Lahore), Mian Muhammad Saleem v. Zafar Riaz 2000 M LD 296 (Lahore), Amanat Hussain Khan v. Mrs. Asma Masood 2004 YLR 2514 (Karachi) and Shakeel Ahmad v.
Mushtaq Ahmad 2000 YLR 992 (Lahore).
6. It may be mentioned here that respondent did not appear in Court despite issuance of notices.
He was held ex parte on 6-5-2005 by Deputy Registrar of this Court on account of having refused to accept service.
7. The jurisdiction of Rent Controller under the Act is contingent on existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the property, subject matter of the proceedings, should be a building, residential or non-residential, rented land or scheduled building situated in an urban area. A Rent Controller does not enjoy status of a Civil Court of general jurisdiction, he is, nevertheless, entitled to determine the question of the relationship of landlord and tenant. Rent Controller has jurisdiction to decide questions relating to existence of facts upon which jurisdiction can be exercised. He is a special Tribunal having a restrictive jurisdiction and as soon as it is proved beyond any shadow of doubt on record that no such relationship exists between the parties to the proceedings, his jurisdiction over the matter in question comes to an end and the Rent Controller cannot assume jurisdiction under the Act. The question of the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is one which has a direct bearing on the question of Rent Controller's jurisdiction. The question of tenancy carries certain advantages and must be proved by evidence of a very high order. It cannot be proved by mere oral evidence as held in 1983 SCM R 1064 and PLD 1974 Kar.
19.
8. Having adjudged the matter from all angles, in the light of the material on the file, I find that appellant has produced the rent deed (Exh.P.W.3/1), produced marginal witnesses of the deed and examined the witness who has collected the rent from the respondent, which fact has been confirmed by the official record of the bank because the cheques which were tendered as rent were encashed by the said witness having his signature on the back of cheques. The onus to prove the factum of mortgage, was heavily placed on the respondent but he has failed to discharge the same. Nothing has been brought on record to dislodge the claim of the appellant.
' In view of the above, I accept the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The respondent shall vacate the suit premises within one month, subject to payment of rent. No order as to costs. 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.