' SYED ASGHAR HAIDER, J.--- The appellant claims himself to be an owner of the disputed property commonly known as 165/N Samanabad, Lahore and had rented out the same to the respondent No,1 on a monthly rent of Rs,6,000 vide agreement/deed dated 21-8-2004. The appellant, later, filed an ejectment petition against the respondent No,1, inter alia, pleading the grounds of wilful default in payment of rent, damage and impairment to the property and personal bona fide need. The respondent No,1 filed the written statement/reply denying the relationship of landlord and tenant and pleading that the property was in occupation of respondent No,2, who had purchased the same through a registered sale-deed. He also averred that the same has been challenged by the appellant claiming to be one of the co-sharers. The Rent Controller without framing any issue, proceeded to dismiss the petition. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner filed an appeal which was also dismissed hence the present appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that mere denial of tenancy by the tenant does not absolve the Tribunal of its authority to frame an issue in this context and provide the parties with opportunity to prove their contentions respectively, he further stated that it is only when a complex and critical issue qua the title of the property crops up before him that he is not competent to adjudicate the dispute. In the present matter no issue was framed qua the relationship of landlord and tenant inter se the parties, thus, the parties could not comprehensively lead evidence to establish their respective stances, this has caused prejudice to the petitioner's cause, further the definition of landlord and tenant as defined in the statute has not been considered, likewise the effect of rent deed in this context has not been adverted to.
' The respondents Nos.1 and 2 despite publication did not appear and hence were proceeded ex parte.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. The order dated 6-4-2007, passed by the learned Rent Controller reflects that he ventured to direct the appellant to produce his documents of title and merely examined them summarily without giving any conclusive finding substantiated by evidence on the same, he observed that:--- "It is clear from the material available on record that the Property bearing No,165-N Samanabad, Lahore was jointly owned by the present petitioner and his father Sajid Pervez. The shop comprised in the above said property which his the subject-matter of the ejectment petition appears to have been sold on behalf of Sajid Pervez through general attorney in favour of Muhammad Dawood Butt vide Sale-deed No,4922, dated 10-5-2006."
5. The Rent Restriction Ordinance is a special law, the definition of landlord in section 2(c) reads as under:--- "Section 2(c) "landlord" means any person for the time being entitled to receive rent in respect of any building or rented land whether on his own account or on behalf or for the benefit of any other person, or as a trustee guardian, receiver, executor or administrator for any other person, and includes a tenant who sublets any building or rented land in the manner hereinafter authorized and every person from time to time deriving title under a landlord;"
' Thus, it encompasses any person who received rent. Likewise the definition of tenant as defined in section 2(i) reads:-- "Section 2(i). "tenant" means any person by whom or on whose account rent is payable for a building or rented land and includes (a) a tenant continuing in possession after the termination of the tenancy in his favour, and (b) the wife and children of a aeceased tenant, but does not include a person placed in occupation of a building or rented land by its tenant, unless with the consent in writing of the landlord or a person to whom the collection of fees in a public market, cart-stand, or slaughterhouse or of rents for shops have been framed out or leased by Municipal, Town or Notified Area Committee, or by the Corporation of the City of Lahore or by the Lahore Improvement Trust or any other Improvement Trust."
' Thus it spells out a person who pays rent of the rented premises. The appellant in the instant matter filed an ejectment petition and placed on record a photocopy of the tenancy agreement, it was duly signed by the parties and therefore, the Rent Controller was bound to take the same into consideration and thereafter proceed to decide the matter in accordance with law after framing a preliminary issue in this context notwithstanding the clear denial by the tenant, as required by section 13(6) of the Ordinance permitting the parties to produce evidence, examine and appraise it and thereafter arrive at a finding to determine that there is dispute qua title or not. The procedure to be adopted by the Rent Controller no doubt is summary and meant to hold an inquiry, but it has to be in consonance with the principles of natural justice, no deviation in this solemn duty is permissible. The matter in hand has already been dwelt upon in Waheed-ur-Rehman v.
Muhammad Ashraf and 2 others PLD 2001 Pesh. 42 but it was not adhered to therefore, the same is not tenable. As far as the impugned judgment is concerned it is strange that the lower Appellate Court was cognizant of the fact that when the parties adopt divergent stances, issues are required to be framed (para.6) but it also proceeded ignore the standard procedure in this context and merely observed that "as the documents are already on record, therefore, the Rent Controller has rightly relied upon them". It adverted in this context to Rehmatullah v. Ali Muhammad and another 1983 SCMR 1064 and Umar Hayat Khan v. Inayatullah Butt and others 1994 SCMR 572 Both the precedents referred to have not been appreciated correctly in Rehmatullah v. Ali Muhammad and another 1983 SCMR 1064. It is clearly enunciated that the Rent Controller is not required to adjudicate the question of title but the Rent Controller is required to record proper evidence to reach this conclusion, so is the case in the other precedent. Therefore, the procedure adopted by the Rent Controller and condoned by the Lower Appellate Court is patently illegal.
6. The Rent Controller while exercising powers under the statute is required to adhere to all provisions contained therein but it completely ignored the definition of landlord as contained in section 2(c), although in the impugned order he did admit that the property was jointly owned by appellant and his father, who later sold it and same was under challenge by the petitioner/appellant, he however, completely ignored the rent deed although it was on record, therefore, he committed an illegality on this count as well.
7. Resultantly, this appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment and order, dated 6-4-2007 of the Rent Controller are set aside. The ejectment petition/proceedings would deem to be pending before the learned Rent Controller who shall frame a proper preliminary issue qua the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant inter se the parties and thereafter proceed to decide the matter after permitting the parties to lead the oral and documentary evidence, permit cross-examination of, the witnesses and fulfil all legal and codal formalities of trial, the exercise be expeditiously concluded and record be returned.