' SHAUKAT UMAR PIRZADA, J.---Through this appeal, the appellant has challenged the order dated 20-1-2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Multan, whereby order of ejectment of the appellant from the shop in question passed by the learned Rent Controller, Multan on 19-2-2009 has been upheld.
2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that portion of Shop No,125 situated in New Grain Market, Multan (hereinafter referred as shop in question), was owned by father of respondent, who transferred the same to him vide Memo No,7962 dated 1-10-2001 issued by the Market Committee.
The appellant is a tenant in the said shop under the respondent's father through rent agreement dated 19-5-1999. Initially, the rent of the shop was Rs,2000, which kept on increasing and was Rs,5000 per month at the time of filing ejectment petition. After transfer of the shop in question to the respondent, the appellant started paying rent to the respondent and due to close relationship between the parties, no fresh rent agreement was executed between them. On 25-7-2004, respondent served a notice on the appellant to vacate the shop in question, as he wanted the same for his personal use, whereupon the appellant stopped payment of rent from August, 2004 onwards. Consequently respondent filed ejectment petition on 11-3-2005 against the appellant on the grounds of default in payment of rent from August, 2004 onwards and requiring the shop in question for his bona fide personal use. This ejectment petition was contested by the appellant, who raised various objections including that the shop in question is a part of a joint property and the ejectment petition cannot be proceeded before its formal partition and that no relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties, as appellant is not a tenant of the respondent rather of his father, namely, Allah Bakhsh and depositing rent in his favour regularly uptil now. In view of denial of relationship, the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues:--
(1) Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties. If so, with what effect? OPA
(2) Relief.
3. In support of their contentions, the parties lead their evidence and after hearing their counsel, the ejectment petition was accepted by the learned Rent Controller on 19-2-2009 and appellant was directed to hand over the vacant possession of the shop in question to the respondent within 30 days. Feeling aggrieved by the said order of ejectment, petitioner preferred appeal there against, which was also dismissed on 20-1-2010 by the learned Additional District Judge, Multan, hence, this second appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned orders of the courts below are result of non-reading and misreading of evidence, as the courts below have failed to appreciate that the shop in question is jointly owned and ejectment petition against the appellant is not maintainable till a formal partition is not effected. He further contends that the appellant is not the tenant of respondent No,1 as he has taken the shop in question on rent from the respondent's father and is depositing rent regularly in his favour. He has also stated that respondent has never served any notice on the appellant informing the change of ownership in his favour.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent has controverted the contentions of learned counsel for the appellant and has stated that the appellant stopped payment of rent when respondent asked him through notice to vacate the shop in question, as the same is required by him for his personal use and that the appellant is a wilful defaulter, hence, liable to be ejected. He has supported the impugned orders of the courts below.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. Admittedly, the shop in question was initially owned by the father of respondent, who rented out the same to the appellant vide rent agreement dated 19-5-1999 on a monthly rent of Rs,2000. As per the record, the shop in question was transferred by Allah Bakhsh to his son/respondent vide transfer order dated 29-9-2001 Exh.A.5 and A ownership certificate was issued in his favour by the Market Committee, Multan Exh.A.6. The stance of the appellant that he is not tenant under the respondent and his father Allah Bakhsh was owner and his (appellant's) landlord, is contradicted by the documentary evidence Exh.A.5 and Exh.A.6, which clearly shows that the shop in question stood transferred to respondent in 2001. His other contention that he is depositing rent in favour of Allah Bakhsh, is also contrary to the record, as no such receipt is available on the record disregarding the fact that availability thereof would have no bearing on this case. The appellant's contention that respondent has never served any notice with regard to the change of ownership, is not maintainable, as filing of the ejectment petition is a sufficient notice of change of ownership in favour of the respondent, whereafter the appellant is not entitled to raise such an objection. This view has been supported by Syed Azhar Imam Rizvi v. Mst. Salma Khatoon (1985 SCM R 24), the relevant extract of which is as under:-- ". It is also not correct that after admission by the petitioner that he had received a copy of the ejectment application in 1978 wherein the factum of sale in favour of the respondent had clearly been mentioned, he was entitled to any other formal notice under section 13-A. The receipt of the copy of the ejectment application and knowledge gained thereby would constitute due notice and it will have to be treated as substantial compliance of section 13-A of the Ordinance...."
' The denial of relationship only for the reason that no notice regarding change of ownership has been served by respondent No,3 on the appellant, who is closely related to respondent No,3 is unjust and unlawful. This view is supported by Ejaz Hussain v. Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi and others [1991 Law Notes (Rawalpindi Bench) 727]. The relevant portion from the same is reproduced below:-- ' There is considerable force in arguments raised by the respondents learned counsel. Existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was not dependant upon service of notice under section 13-A of the Ordinance. If a tenant positively gets knowledge of transfer or change of ownership from the name of the original landlord in favour of the new one, he cannot object to the competence of the eviction petition even on the ground of default.
' The contention/objection that as the shop in question is jointly owned, therefore, the ejectment petition against the appellant cannot proceed without affecting a formal partition thereof, is without substance, particularly in view of the appellants admissions as to the description of the shop in question and his status as a tenant in the shop in question. The appellant cannot wriggle out his own admissions. He is also unable to rebut Exh.A.5 and Exh.A.6, which prove the respondent as owner of the shop in question. The appellant is a tenant in the shop in question, therefore, his status will remain unchanged in view of this time honoured principle of law that, once a tenant always a tenant. Mere denial of relationship of landlord and tenant with the respondent will not change his status. More-over, the concurrent findings of the Courts below are in accordance with the record and law and the learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any misreading or non-reading of evidence in the impugned orders of the Courts below. No illegality or irregularly has been pointed out in the impugned orders of the Courts below, which are even otherwise well reasoned and based on the evidence produced by the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant has miserably failed to make out any case warranting interference of this Court.
' In view of what has been discussed, this appeal is devoid of merits, hence, dismissed with costs.