ALI AKBAR QURESHI, J.--- This constitutional petition is directed against an order dated 3-7-2008, passed by the learned Rent Controller, whereby the application under Order VII, rule 11 read with section 10 of C.P.C. Was dismissed.
2. Respondents in the instant petition instituted an ejectment petition against the present petitioner and respondents Nos.2 to 4 on the ground of default, sublet and personal need. During the proceedings before the learned trial Court the present petitioner filed an application under section 10, C.P.C. For stay of proceedings in the ejectment petition, whereas the respondents Nos.2 to 4 herein, filed an application under Order VII, rule 11 read with section 151, C.P.C. For the rejection of the ejectment petition before the learned Rent Controller. The applications were replied by respondent No,1/landlord. The learned Rent Controller after hearing the arguments of the parties dismissed both the applications vide order impugned herein.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Rent Controller should have stayed the proceedings in the ejectment petition as a suit for specific performance of an agreement between the parties, is pending before the Civil Court. Next contended that as the petitioner has denied the relationship of landlord and tenant on the basis of an agreement therefore, the learned Rent Controller is required by law to wait the final adjudication of the suit for specific performance between the parties. Lastly contended that as the valuable rights of the petitioner is involved in the suit property and if any decision is taken on the ejectment petition that definitely will prejudice the case filed by the petitioner on the basis of an agreement executed between the parties. Reliance is placed on Dr. Arslan Razzaq v. Ali Hussain PLD 1993 Lah. 97; Muhammad Amin and others v. Syed Kazim Hussain and others 1995 MLD 446 and Bahadur Ali v.
Raja Fazal Hussain 1990 CLC 1529.
4. Conversely the learned counsel for the respondents submits that although the suit for specific performance is pending but the proceedings before the learned Rent Controller in the ejectment petition cannot be stopped as the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan has already observed in Mrs. Annetta Haroon v. Mst. Sughran Bibi and others 2000 SCMR 716 that mere execution of agreement of sale could not either suspend tenancy or take away the jurisdiction of the learned Rent Controller to entertain and decide the ejectment. Also contended that the aforesaid preposition was also discussed in a judgment of this Court titled as Muhammad Riaz v. Mst. Razia Begum and 2 others 2005 CLC 1959 and finally decided that the ejectment proceedings in this eventuality should be continued in normal course and the learned Rent Controller should decide the vital issue as to whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
6. The preposition agitated by the petitioner has already been dealt with in plethora of judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan as well as this Court that in the presence of any agreement to sell or pendency of a civil suit on the basis of the said agreement, the proceedings before the learned Rent Controller in an ejectment petition shall be continued in normal course.
The learned Rent Controller has rightly observed that the question of relationship being factual controversy can only effectively decided after recording the evidence of the parties and the filing of the ejectment petition by respondent No,1, is not barred by any law. While dismissing the application under section 10, C.P.C. Filed by respondents Nos.2 to 4 the learned Rent Controller rightly concluded that the proceedings in the ejectment petition cannot be stayed on the ground of pendency of a civil suit on the basis of an agreement between the parties. Even otherwise learned counsel for the petitioner failed to cite any judgment or offer any plausible explanation regarding the maintainability of the instant constitutional petition against an interim order passed by the learned Rent Controller. Further the learned counsel has also failed to point out any jurisdictional defect, legal infirmity or material irregularity with the order impugned.
7. For what has been stated above the instant petition is dismissed.