' ALI AKBER QURESHI, J.--- Through this constitutional petition, the petitioner has questioned the validity of the orders, dated 23-1-2008 and 25-1-2007 passed by the learned Courts below respectively whereby the ejectment petition was allowed because of noncompliance of the order passed under section 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance,1959 by the petitioner.
2. The respondent filed an ejectment petition against the petitioner on the following grounds; (a) that the demise property is required to the respondent for his personal use; (b) that the petitioner/respondent is chronic defaulter and did not pay the rent @ Rs,11,000 per month and (c) that the petitioner/respondent has damaged the rent premises.
3. The ejectment petition was seriously opposed by the present petitioner by filing the written reply.
In the written reply, the petitioner denied the relationship of landlord and tenant on the ground that the petitioner has already purchased the rented premises from previous owner namely Alviya Begum through an oral agreement. Further stated in the written reply that the petitioner has also paid a sum of Rs,5,000 whereas the remaining consideration is to be paid at the time of execution of the sale-deed. The learned Rent Controller passed a detailed order on 25-1-2007 under section 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 whereby the petitioner was directed to deposit the future monthly rent @ Rs,11,000 per month in favour of the respondent before 15th of each succeeding month and also to pay the arrears of rent from July, 2005 till January, 2007 for nineteen months, total amounting to Rs,11,000 x 19=2,90,000 till, the next date of hearing. The petitioner instead of complying with the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, filed an application under section 151, C.P.C. For framing of a preliminary issue regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant. The learned trial Court with an elaborative order, dismissed the said application on 12- 7-2007 and directed the petitioner to produce the receipt of deposited rent. On 25-10-2007, the date fixed for the production of receipts for the deposit of rent in compliance of the order, dated 25-1-2007 passed under section 13(6) of the Ordinance (ibid) the petitioner could not produce the receipt so the learned Rent Controller having no option in law passed the eviction order under section 13(6) of the Ordinance (ibid) and directed the petitioner to hand over the vacant possession of the property in question to the respondent Within one month from the date of order i,e, 25-10-2007.
4. The petitioner being dissatisfied of the order, dated 25-10-2007 whereby the petitioner was directed to hand over the vacant possession of the property in question to the respondent, preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Lahore. The learned Additional District Judge, Lahore after hearing the arguments of both the parties finally dismissed the appeal being without force, hence this constitutional petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the orders impugned herein, are totally against the facts, record and law applicable to the case. Also contended that both the learned Courts below seriously fell in error by not appreciating the legal controversy involved in the matter.
Further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner specifically denied the relationship of landlord and tenant on the ground that the rented premises was purchased by the petitioner from the previous owner against consideration and the petitioner/tenant also stopped the payment of monthly rent to the previous owner, the day the property was purchased so in any case the petitioner has no relation of landlord and tenant whatsoever with the previous owner as well as the subsequent alleged purchaser so the findings recorded by the learned Courts below are not sustainable in law. Learned counsel in support of his contention further submitted that the petitioner has already filed a suit for specific performance of the oral agreement to sell arrived at between the petitioner and the previous owner Alviya Begum which is still pending adjudication before the competent Court of law so the learned Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Court should have awaited for the final verdict in the aforesaid case and the findings recorded by the learned Courts below on this aspect are perverse and have no legal sanctity.
Learned counsel next contended that the co-owner of the rented premises has also filed a suit challenging the validity of sale-deed executed in favour of the respondent and also the oral agreement made in favour of the petitioner by the previous owner. The said suit is still pending adjudication in a Civil Court and the learned Courts below were otherwise under legal obligation to stop the proceedings in the ejectment petition till the final adjudication of the aforesaid suit.
Learned counsel has also contended that no notice under section 13-A of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 has been given so on this score alone, the ejectment petition is liable to be dismissed. Further contended that in the presence of the aforesaid two suits, the filing of the ejectment petition by the respondent is based on mala fide and ulterior motive simply to black mail and harass the petitioner. Learned counsel in support of his contention has placed reliance on Messrs Allah Ditta Musical Company v. Muhammad Idrees Baqir and 8 others 1986 CLC 591, 1984 SCM R 741, Sh. Sana Ullah v. Farah Diba and others 2005 YLR 2784 and Makhan Masih and others v.
Acting Principal F.C. College and others 1984 SCM R 1065.
6. Conversely the learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the contentions made by the petitioner. It is contended on behalf of the respondent that it is admitted by the petitioner that he was tenant of previous owner namely Alviya Begum so the petitioner by operation of law has become the tenant of the respondent because of the fact, that the respondent has purchased the rent premises from the said Alviya Begum against registered sale-deed which still hold the field. Further contended by the learned counsel that the petitioner has claimed the title of the rented premises on the basis of an oral agreement whereas it is well-established principle of law that the agreement does not create any right so such type of plea in the ejectment proceedings is hardly available to a tenant. Also contended by the learned counsel that although a suit is pending wherein the validity of the sale-deed executed in favour of the respondent has been challenged, but till today the sale-deed executed in favour of the respondent still hold the field whereas on the other hand the petitioner has simply claimed and denied the relationship of landlord and tenant on the basis of an oral agreement so the order passed by the learned Courts below is just and strictly in accordance with law. The learned counsel in response of the contention raised by the petitioner regarding the notice under section 13(6) of the Ordinance (ibid) submitted that this Court has already settled this proposition by observing that the ejectment petition is itself a notice and non-service of the notice under section 13-A of the Ordinance (ibid) is not fatal to the ejectment proceedings. Reliance is placed on Aziz Begum v. Faiyaz Buttu 1991 CLC Note 9 at page 6, Muhammad Akram v. Additional District Judge, Lahore and 2 others 1990 CLC 908, Tahir Hussain v.
Ghulam Faruque and 7 others PLD 1978 Kar. 182 and Ch. Muhammad Akmal v. Faisal Saeed Mirza and others 2004 CLC 862.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance.
8. The admitted facts on record of the instant case are that the petitioner was inducted in the rented premises as tenant by the previous owner namely Alviya Begum; that the petitioner had been paying the monthly rent to the previous owner; that sale-deed was executed and got registered by the previous owner namely Alviya Begum in favour of the respondent; that the sale- deed inspite of the fact that a suit is pending still hold the field and has not yet been cancelled by any competent legal forum and no objection has been raised by the previous owner namely Alviya Begum in the ejectment petition filed by the respondent. The petitioner who has simply claimed the title of the rented premises and denied the relationship of landlord and tenant on the ground that an oral agreement was executed in favour of the petitioner by the previous owner namely Alviya Begum. Although, the oral agreement is permissible in law but it has already been ruled in plethora of judgments that the agreement to sell even written does not create any right or title in favour of the purchaser. The respondent purchased the said property against a registered sale-deed which still hold the field, has a better title as compare to the petitioner and the filing of a civil suit challenging the validity of the sale-deed executed in favour of the respondent does not vitiate the title unless the same is finally decided. The petitioner, who has also filed a suit for the specific performance of an oral agreement and if at the end of the day, the petitioner succeeded, can ask for the possession of the rent premises in accordance with law. The petitioner although denied the relationship of landlord and tenant but could not place any material on record in support of his contention and rather elected to disobey the order passed under section 13 of the Ordinance (ibid) by the learned Rent Controller. The petitioner could have avoided his eviction from the demised property by complying with the order passed under section 13(6) of the Ordinance (ibid) by the learned trial Court and contest the ejectment petition on merits. In the aforesaid circumstances, there is hardly any scope to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Courts below, while exercising the constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
9. Resultantly, this petition has no force and is dismissed with a direction to the petitioner to hand over the vacant possession of the property in question to the respondent/landlord within one month from today. No order as to costs.