1. ' SHAHID ANWAR BAJWA, J.--- Present petitioner filed Rent Case No.104 of 2008. In the application she stated that she contracted to purchase open Plot No.C-167, Block-I, North Nazimabad, Karachi, with the exception of only one shop in occupation of present respondent No.1 as tenant thereof.
2. After entering into an agreement she published a notice in newspaper and then applied for transfer and mutation, which was accordingly issued on 21-8-2007 in her name by Deputy District Officer North Nazimabad of City District Government Karachi. It was further pleaded that opponent was old tenant of one Khawaja Muhammad Saleem in respect of shop in question. The opponent paid rent for the months of October and November, 2006 to the petitioner and thereafter stopped payment of rent. Default of rent was from November, 2006 till filing of ejectment application, which was filed in February, 2008.
3. ' In written statement it was contended by the present respondent No.1 that he acquired a piece of land 27 years ago and himself constructed a shop there. However after completion of shop said Mr. Khawaja Muhammad Saleem came and demanded rent while showing himself to be owner of plot in question. It was further pleaded in written statement that opponent being illiterate person believed claim of Khawaja Saleem and started paying monthly rent which he continued to pay for two months even after the present petitioner had purchased that property. It was further contended in written statement that when he became aware regarding factual position in respect of the shop, he stopped payment of rent.
4. ' Ejectment application was allowed by the, Rent Controller by holding that present respondent No.1 was tenant of previous owner namely Khawaja Muhammad Saleem to whom he was paying rent regularly and thereafter he also paid rent to the present applicant.
5. ' An application under section 16(1) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 was filed. Counter affidavit was filed to that application. Thereafter statement was filed by landlord stating that she is prepared to drop her claim in respect of arrears of rent due against opponent if eviction of opponent is ordered without recording evidence, because of admission by the petitioner about non-payment of rent. This statement was duly taken on record and the Rent Controller on the basis of admission made by opponent in the rent case holding that it is well settled principle of law that opponent cannot be permitted to take different stand during evidence than he had taken in his written statement as well as in objection to application under section 16(1) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979.
6. ' Being aggrieved by the order of the Rent Controller, present respondent No.1 filed First Rent Appeal, F.R.A. Was allowed and it was observed that since there is dispute about relationship of landlord and tenant, the case was remanded to the Rent Controller for recording evidence on the point of existence of relationship of landlord and tenant. Being aggrieved by the order passed in First Rent Appeal, this Constitutional Petition has been filed.
7. ' On 27-8-2909 learned counsel for respondent was put on notice that if on next date nc did not appear no further adjournment will be granted and matter would be heard and decided. Today no one is present for the respondent, I, therefore heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
8. ' In the written statement in para. No.1, it was stated as follows:--- "(1) That the contents of paras. No.1 of the application under reply are admitted upto the extent of Plot No.C-167, Block-I, North Nazimabad, Karachi, but as far as the opponent as a tenant is concerned, in this regard it is submitted that the opponent had acquired the piece of land 27 years ago and after that the opponent himself got the shop in question constructed but just after completion of the shop Khawaja Saleem owner of the Plot No.C-167, came and demanded the rent while showing himself to be owner of the plot in question. The opponent being an illiterate person believed in claim of Khawaja Saleem and started the monthly rent, whereas the ground reality is that the plot on which the opponent got the shop constructed is the open plot of the Defunct Karachi Improvement Trust, which last the property of City District Government of Karachi."
9. ' Thereafter in para. No.3, it was stated as follows:--- "(3) That the contents of paras. Nos.3 and 4, of the application under reply is admitted upto the extent of monthly rent Rs.750 subject to unawareness regarding the facts of the plot, as far as being a tenant opponent is liable to pay the monthly rent is concerned, in this pretext it is pertinent to bring on record that the opponent stopped to deposit the monthly rent in MRC, after refusing the money order as per mentioned in this para., when the real fact of the piece of land..On which opponent's shop is standing came into knowledge of opponent. On the contrary opponent just after knowing that the piece of land on which the shop is standing is the property of City District Government of Karachi, moved application for obtaining the same being an old occupant, as such the applicant is not legally entitled to claim the monthly rent on the plot in question which is not the property of applicant. As such the rent case is liable to be dismissed."
10. ' When application under section 16(1) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 was filed, in counter affidavit, respondent No.1 stated as under:- "(4) That I say that the applicant is not entitled to get the monthly rent from me, as the applicant neither claim to be owner of plot measuring 760 Sq. Yds, adjacent to the Plot No.C' 167, measuring 600 Sq. Yds, as per record for which I have already produced the documentary evidence along with the written statement as Annexures "A", "B" and "C", nor the said plot cannot be transferred without due course of law, as laid down in the SLGO 2001.
(5) That I say that the documents produced by the applicant related to the mutation made by the CDGX is required to be examined according to the law, as to how the CDGK can mutate the plot measuring 760 sq. Yds, adjacent to the Plot No.C-167, without due course of law, if the document provide false, so the applicant is liable to be prosecuted under section 195, Cr.P.C. By this Honourable Court in the light of under sections 468, 471, P.P.C."
11. ' There is thus clear admission by the respondent No.1 that firstly he paid rent for more than 20 years to Khawaja Muhammad Saleem and secondly he even paid rent to the petitioner for a period of two months. Secondly the respondent No.1 in his written statement stated that he acquired a piece of land 27 years ago. Under what authority did he acquire that land? Did he purchase it? Was it gifted to him or is he a mere trespasser? He has all along with chosen to stay mum.
12. ' It is settled law that landlord may not be the owner. Once a tenant, always a tenant is also settled law. Having himself taken position in his written statement that respondent No.1 was paying rent and was therefore tenant he cannot take different position and to say that he ceased being tenant.
13. It is settled law that when tenant denies relationship of landlord and tenant and such relationship stood proved, then there is no other way left to the Court but to order ejectment of the tenant. In this case respondent No.1 firstly accepted that he was a tenant then accepted that he stopped paying rent. Therefore, order of Rent Controller is in conformity with the law.
14. ' It is settled law that constitutional jurisdiction, being an extraordinary jurisdiction is to be exercised to foster ends of justice. Constitutional jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and the Court may decline even to set aside an illegal order if doing so would perpetuate injustice or would perpetuate another illegal order. High Court can grant relief, even though it may not have prayed for. High Court cannot allow an injustice or a wrong act to be perpetuated. In this petition, the petitioner has nowhere stated that she purchased the land on which the shop in question is situated. She is therefore also not entitled to the shop and area thereof. She is therefore restrained from letting it out to any other person. A copy of this order may be sent to the City District Government for taking over the shop and thereafter deciding its disposal in accordance with the law. I, therefore, set aside order of the appellate Court and uphold order passed by the Rent Controller in the above terms.