' HAFIZ ABDUL REHMAN ANSARI, J.---Through this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the orders dated 6-7-2009 and 2-11-2009. Through the former order the learned Rent Controller/Civil Judge, Multan, allowed the ejectment petition of respondent No,1 Ameer Altaf filed under section 13 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, whereas through the latter order the learned Additional District Judge, Multan dismissed the appeal of the petitioner filed against the said order of the learned Rent Controller.
2. Necessary facts giving rise to the filing of the instant writ petition are that respondent No,1 Ameer Altaf, landlord, filed an ejectment petition against the petitioner and Mushtaq Ahmed, tenant, with regard to house measuring 5 Marlas, situated in Street No,6, Raza Abad, Police Lines Gate No,2, Multan by contending therein that the respondent was owner of the rented premises and vide rent deed dated 19-8-2003 it was let out to Mushtaq Ahmed, respondent No,2 at the monthly rent of Rs.1500 which was to be paid on 5th of each succeeding month but he committed wilful default in payment of rent for six months, i,e, April, 2005 to October, 2005; that the respondent-tenant in violation of terms and conditions of the rent deed had sublet the said property to Abdul Ghaffar petitioner, who was impleaded as defendant on the direction of the Rent Controller. The ejectment petition was filed on the ground of damage to the rented premises, personal need of the landlord, sub-letting the premises by the tenant, and wilful default in payment of rent. The learned trial Court framed necessary issues, recorded evidence of the parties and vide order dated 6-7-2009 accepted the petition, respondent No,1 was directed to deposit the rent from the month of 9/2005 till the date of judgment at the rate of Rs.1500/- per month and respondent No,2 was directed to vacate the rented property within 30 days. On appeal filed by Abdul Ghaffar, petitioner, the findings of the learned Rent Controller on issues Nos.1 and 2, regarding ownership of the respondent over the disputed premises and whether the petitioner was tenant of the respondent were upheld and the appeal filed against the said order was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Multan vide judgment and decree dated 2-11-2009.
3. Before me, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that both the Court below travelled beyond the jurisdiction the property sought to be vacated falls beyond the territorial limits of the Municipality so the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the matter. Submits that the petitioner had become owner of the property as per agreement to sell dated 28-9-2005 executed in favour of the petitioner with the owner of the property Faiz Bakhsh. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not make stress on the other points taken in the writ petition.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent vehemently supported the orders passed by the two Courts below. Submitted that the petitioner has taken this plea for the first time in writ jurisdiction that the property is situated outside the limits of Municipality area. The petition under section 13 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance can only be filed about the property which is situated within the boundary of the town and as the petitioner did not take this plea in his written reply or in appeal so he is estopped to raise this plea at this juncture. Further submits that even R.W.1 and R.W.2 admitted in their statements that the disputed property is situated at Bosan Town.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The plaintiff-landlord produced in evidence his attorney Abdul Raza as A.W.1, Riaz Hussain, deed-writer as A.W.2 and Safdar Hussain as A.W.3. A.W.-1 produced rent deed Exh.A-5. Further the A.Ws. Produced their affidavits as Exh.A-1 to A-3. A.W.1 also produced the special power of attorney as Exh.A-4. On the other hand, the petitioner himself appeared as R.W.1. He also produced Muhammad Zulfiqar as R.W.2. Exh.R-2 order sheet, Exh.R-5 original receipt of advance and lqrarnama Market-A. When the witness of the petitioner-tenant himself admitted in cross-examination that the property in dispute is situated at Bosan Town, so it is not situated beyond the territorial limits of the Urban area. Further the petitioner has raised this plea for the first time in writ jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the respondent has rightly placed reliance on the case reported as Rehmatullah and others v. Saleh Khan and others (2007 SCM R 729). Parties would be bound by their pleadings. As the petitioner did not plead in his written statement the plea now he is raising, so it cannot advance his case. The petitioner has not assailed the judgments of the two Courts below on other grounds. Both the Courts below have rightly held the, respondent-plaintiff as owner of the property. The learned Rent Controller accepted the ejectment petition and the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal of the petitioner filed against the said order of the learned Rent Controller, as such there are concurrent findings of the two Courts below with regard to the factum, which cannot be disturbed by this Court in writ jurisdiction unless and until some jurisdictional error or defect is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner and he has badly failed to point out any irregularity or illegality in the judgments of the two Courts below.
6. For the reasons discussed above, this writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
However, the petitioner is directed to vacate the premises within two month from the date of this order.