' SYED ASGHAR HAIDER, J.--- The appellant is owner of the disputed property located in Khasra No,7338, situated at Kachehry Road, near Sabzi Mandi Kasur. He rented out the property to the respondent vide rent deed, dated 25-8-1998. The respondent purportedly defaulted in payment of the rent and, therefore the appellant/petitioner filed an ejectment petition before the learned Rent Controller, inter alia pleading grounds of personal need and default in rent. After contest the petition was dismissed. Aggrieved thereof the appellant filed an appeal, which too was dismissed.
Hence the present appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that he is owner of the disputed property located in Khasra No,7338, the respondent has not denied the relationship while filing the written statement, he adverted to paragraph I and also Exh A/2. He also referred to various parts of examination-in-chief and cross-examination of the witnesses in this context. He further elucidated the point by submitting that despite this admission, available on the file, both the forums below declined the ejectment petition. Therefore, the impugned order and judgment be set aside.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent contested the proposition with full vigour and stated that there are concurrent findings of fact against the appellant, contained in the impugned order and judgment, therefore, the instant second appeal is not maintainable. He also stated that there is a clear dispute inter se the parties qua the ownership of the disputed property, the respondent is occupant of Knasra No,7337 whereas the property of the appellant is situated in Khasra No,7338, therefore, the ejectment petition was not maintainable and should not have been filed at all. He also denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and default in rent.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length.
5. It is explicit and clear that relationship of landlord and tenant has not been denied in the written statement, rather it has been admitted.
' It also is reflected in the written statement that a rent deed was duly executed. To supplement these admissions Exh.A/2 is also on record, which bears the thumb-impression of the parties and the execution of which has not been categorically denied. There also is no material on record to establish that the same has been challenged in any forum or tier of competent jurisdiction. When the written statement and Exh.A/1 are read together it is clear and explicit that there exists a clear relationship of landlord and tenant inter se the parties and that the appellant is the owner of Khasra No,7338. In this view of the matter, the objections raised by the learned counsel for the respondent are without any basis and, therefore, repelled. As far as the parameters of Rehmatullah v. Ali Muhammad and another 1983 SCM R 1064 are concerned they are totally distinguishable on facts and have no application to the proposition. In these circumstances the appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Rent Controller and lower Appellate Court are set aside, the ejectment petition is granted, as prayed for.
6. Before parting with this judgment, it is worthwhile to mention, that the counsel for the appellant Mr. Khalid Ishaque, Advocate, submitted that execution shall be filed qua Khasra No,7338 only, and not any other Khasra number. This undertaking shall be taken due note of, by the Executing Court, and execution shall be restricted only to Khasra No,7338 only.