SHAHID ANWAR BAJWA, J.---The petitioner in this petition is tenant in respect of Shop No,F-24, Mujahid Colony, Nazimabad No,4, Karachi. It was stated in the ejectment application that the tenant and the landlord entered into a tenancy agreement on 4-2-2006 and the rent of the shop was fixed at Rs,1500 per month. Ejectment application was filed on the ground of alteration in the premises and default in payment of rent starting from November, 2006 till filing of the ejectment application which application was filed sometime in the month of April, 2007.
2. Written-statement was filed on behalf of the present petitioner. A Existence of relationship of landlord and tenant was denied. It was pleaded that on 19-1-2006 an agreement of sale was entered into between the landlord and tenant under which sale consideration of Rs,4,10,000 paid and tenant was made sole and only owner of the plot and construction made thereon. Agreement of tenancy was stated to be bogus and signatures of the tenant on the said agreement were denied.
3. Rent Controller framed the following issues:-- "(1) Whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties?
(2) Whether the opponent has committed default in payment of monthly rent since 1-2-2006 onward and utility charges?
(3) Whether the opponent has made additions and alterations in the premises in question?
(4) What should the order be?"
4. Thereafter vide order, dated 23-4-2007, ground of addition and alteration in the premises was rejected. It was held that there exists relationship of landlord and tenant and ground of default was upheld. Appeal was filed in the appellate Court and the appellate Court vide judgment, dated 24- 5-2009 concurred with the findings arrived at by the Rent Controller. Learned counsel for the petitioner made the following submissions:--
(1) That the present respondent No, 1/landlord filed a Civil Suit No,1342 of 2007 for cancellation of agreement of sale. In the plaint of that suit it was stated that premises has been rented to the present respondent.
' In October, 2005 earthquake took place in Azad Kashmir and the plaintiff along with his family members had gone to Azad Kashmir handing over possession of ground floor of residential portion as well as of first floor of the above said plot to his nephew. Present petitioner was alleged to have forcibly taken possession of the entire plot which included Shop No,F-24 and it was prayed in the suit for declaration that agreement of sale, dated 19-1-2006 be declared as illegal, unlawful, null and void, not signed by the plaintiff and for cancellation of the same as well as for possession directing the defendant its agents, servants etc. To deliver physical possession of the building standing on Plot No,A-180, of Mujahid Colony, Nazimabad No,4 Karachi, to the plaintiff. It may not out of place to mention that besides the present petitioner there were 4 other respondents in the civil suit. This Civil Suit bearing No,1434/2007 is still pending in this Court.
(2) That the alleged rent agreement is not signed by the tenant. The agreement is in Urdu and is alleged to bear Ut.Du signature whereas the tenant always signed his name in English language.
(3) In presence of Civil Suit, rent application would not be maintainable and in any case should not have been decided.
(4) The property has been sold by the present respondent to the petitioner vide agreement of sale, dated 13-12-2006.
5. Shaukat Javed v. Sh. Abdul Khaliq and 2 others, 1991 SCM R 215 and Mst. Anis Bano and 3 others v.
Mst. Rabia, 1987 CLC 775.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that rent proceedings are only in respect of Shop No, F-24. In the civil suit besides the petitioner there are 4 other persons who are also a party. Thus, rent proceedings are only for Shop No, F-24 and Civil Suit is for entire Plot No,A-180. He further submitted that the opponent has failed to prove sale of the plot or premises to him. Learned counsel cited a number of authorities to which I will refer in their due place.
7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and have gone through the record as well as case-law cited by the learned counsel.
9. On the question of authenticity of the rent agreement and the sale agreement, the following was stated by the petitioner in his cross-examination:-- "It is incorrect to suggest that on 21-1-2006 a rent agreement was executed between applicant and me. It is incorrect that rent agreement, dated 21-1-2006 bears my signature as well as my NIC number is mentioned. I do not know that rent agreement, sale agreement, NIC and rent receipts were sent to Handwriting Expert and Handwriting Expert opined that signatures present on these documents are forged."
10. The landlord respondent No,1 in his evidence stated as under:- "It is correct that I do not have title documents of plot in question. It is incorrect that I had forcibly occupied the demised premises. It is correct that I had executed a Rent Agreement with opponent on 4th February, 2006. It is correct that I had mentioned in the tenancy agreement that I had taken Rs,10,000 as advance money from the tenant. I do not know that whether opponent had signed in English in the documents filed by him before this Court. It is correct that on my instructions my counsel had sent Legal notice to the opponent. It is correct that whatever contained in the said legal notice, have been read over to me by counsel, I admit the contents of para.2 of my legal notice. It is incorrect that I had sold out the tenement in question to Chan Pir. It is incorrect that I had issued an receipt to opponent after purchasing the demised premises and had also raised construction on the second floor. It is incorrect that arrears of Gas bill had also deposited by the opponent, in-his name. It is correct that an application under Illegal Dispossession Act filed by me had been dismissed by the Hon'ble Vth A.D.J.
' Central Karachi. It is correct that in the application opponent was not made party. It is incorrect that I had sold out the demised premises to the opponent."
11. The Rent Controller in his judgment referred to the question of existence of relationship and the sale agreement and held as under:-- "The applicant has denied his signature on the sale agreement executed with the opponent and therefore this Court on the request of applicant's counsel had sent the documents to the Handwriting Expert in order to decide the matter on merits. I have gone through the report of Handwriting Expert, dated 28-9-2007 and opined as follows:-- "The system characteristics, pen position, pen movement, formation, size, slant, and pen pressure, of the disputed signatures bearing on disputed documents now marked on Q 1, Q 2 and Q 3 are dissimilar with those of the routine signature marked as S1. To S6 of (Muhammad Shafi), thus supplied respectively."
12. Thereafter it concluded, on the question of existence or nonexistence of relationship of landlord and tenant, as under:-- "In view of the above discussion I am of the considered view that the opponent is tenant of the applicant, hence I find that relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is existed.
Accordingly, the point No,1 is answered in affirmative."
13. Thereafter the trial Court answered the question of default in affirmative.
14. This key question was framed by the appellate Court in the following words:-- "The appellant disputed the relationship as landlord and tenant on the basis of sale agreement, dated 19-1-2006 and receipt, dated 19-1-2006. Now a question arises that whether the sale agreement, dated 19-1-2006 and receipt, dated 19-1-2006 are genuine and has been signed by the respondent?"
15. Thereafter appellate Court while concurring with findings of the Rent Controller on the sale agreement observed that whereas the present respondent No,1 produced tenancy agreement, although the present petitioner claimed that he is the owner and he had admitted that prior to purchase he was inducted in the premises as a tenant. But the sale agreement was found by the Courts to be a forged document. Be that as it may, the two Courts below have, after assessing evidence, come to clear finding that relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the present petitioner and respondent No,1 and that present petitioner had committed willful default.
16. The case law cited by the learned counsel is quite distinguishable. In Umar Hayat's case relationship of landlord and tenant was denied and the Rent Controller after coming to the conclusion that the landlord had failed to prove that rent deed pertained to house in possession of the respondent and that his possession thereof had been as tenant, observed that proper course for Rent Controller would be to dismiss the application of the landlord and advise him to get his title established by competent Court. The case is clearly distinguishable because in the present case it is admitted that property belongs to present respondent No,1 and thereafter it was pleaded that it was sold to the D petitioner. It was for the petitioner to establish that such sale had taken place and to prove the agreement of sale. In Shoukat Javed's case relationship of landlord and tenant was denied.Alleged tenant claimed himself to be occupant of the premises in his own right. The petitioner/alleged landlord claimed to be landlord of premises having purchased it. However boundaries mentioned in sale-deed varied from the boundaries stated in the ejectment application. It may not be out of place to state that in that case both the lower Courts had decided in favour of tenant -and the Supreme Court ultimately observed that High Court would not appraise the evidence which appraisal had been undertaken by the two Courts of competent jurisdiction. Therefore, that case, is at all, helps the case of present respondent No, 1 . In Abdul Rehman's case the High Court interfered with the orders of Courts below because in its opinion the two Courts have proceeded in a casual and careless manner.
17. Lastly, in Anis Bano's case relationship of landlord and tenant was denied. The documents of title were in favour of landlord and possession of premises was with the alleged tenant. There was close relationship between the parties. It was held that there was no evidence on record except word of a person claiming to be landlord that persons in possession of premises had come in occupation of house as tenants by agreement. Again the present case is distinguishable because the original ownership of the landlord was not denied by the E petitioner. All that petitioner claimed is that he had purchased the property through an agreement of sale. Therefore, the case law is distinguishable.
18. There is thus no reason for interfering with the concurrent orders of two courts below. In exercise of constitutional jurisdictional the High Court is always very reluctant to interfere with concurrent findings of facts. The constitutional petition is therefore dismissed in limine along with listed applications.