' ABDUL AZIZ KUNDI, J.--- Aqeel Abbasi, a respondent in an Ejectment Petition, has questioned the ejectment orders passed against him, both by Rent Controller/Civil Judge-XII, Peshawar and Additional District Judge-I, Peshawar on 18-7-2009 and 9-12-2009, respectively.
2. The facts precisely stated are that Mst. Surayya Durrani, respondent No,1, through his ejectment petition filed on 8-3-2005, sued the respondent-petitioner for his ejectment from property in the shape of Basement Nos.1, 2 and 3, Sardar Ahmad Jan Plaza, Hospital Road, Dhaki Nalbandi, Peshawar City and also claiming rupees eighteen thousand as rent for the period May, 2004 till the institution of the petition at the rate of rupees eighteen hundred per month and also future monthly rent at the aforesaid rate till she is handed over possession of the property.
3. The ejectment petition was-based on twin grounds of default in payment of rent at the rate of rupees eighteen hundred per month with effect from May, 2004 and requirement of the said property by the respondent land lady for the use and occupation of her son Usman Durrani in good faith and bonafidely.
4. Aged Ahmad Abbasi, through his written statement dated 15-3-2005 contested the ejectment petition and amongst others denied relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the land lady, respondent No,
1. He also pressed into service an agreement to sell dated 18-1-2004 by the Ex- owner Iqbal Ahmad Jan in his favour.
5. On conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court, vide his judgment and decree dated 18-7-2009, answered preliminary issue of relationship of landlord and tenant in favour of landlady-respondent No,1 and thus passed the ejectment order in her favour and against the petitioner-tenant.
6. His Appeal bearing No,8/RA of 2009 was also dismissed by Additional District Judge-I, Peshawar through his impugned judgment and order dated 9-12-2009.
7. In support of this writ petition, Mr. Allauddin Qureshi, Advocate learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the Ex-owner had through an agreement to sell dated 18-1-2004, agreed to sell the disputed property to the petitioner, who was already in its occupation as tenant and that later on the said Ex-owner illegally transferred/sold the said property in favour of his sister Mst.
Surayya Durrani. Respondent No,1 and executed a registered deed in her favour; that petitioner's suit for specific performance in respect of the said agreement dated 18-1-2004 is pending before Civil Court and after having entered into a sale agreement, the relationship of landlord and tenant had ceased to exist between the earstwhile owner and the petitioner and thus there was no such relationship between the purchaser respondent No,1 and the petitioner and that the two courts have fallen into an error of law and facts, while allowing ejectment petition of the respondent landlady. The learned counsel further argued that the forum under the Rent Restriction Ordinance are forums of limited jurisdiction and thus not possessed of powers to enter into question of title which was involved in the instant case and that petitioner being prior purchaser, the subsequent sale in favour of respondent No,1 was invalid, conferring no rights upon her much less the one to eject the petitioner. The learned counsel placed reliance on 1983 SCM R 1064, 1991 CLC 72, 2000 SCMR 577, 2006 CLC 1860 and 2002 CLC 143. It was accordingly argued that the judgments and orders of the two courts below be reversed and the ejectment petition be dismissed.
8. As against that Mr. Abd-uz-Zakir Tareen, Advocate, learned counsel representing the landlady respondent No,1 vehemently argued that the agreement to sell is not' a complete sale nor does such an agreement create a clog on filing of ejectment petition and that respondent landlady after purchase of the property through registered sale-deed served the petitioner tenant through a notice under section 13-A of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, who in response demanded copy of the registered sale-deed, which was supplied to him, but even then he did not attorn to the landlady respondent No,1 and thus the two courts below have on proper appraisal of evidence and application of proper law derived conclusion concurrently, which call for no interference by this court in its constitutional jurisdiction. To substantiate his arguments, he placed reliance on 2006 SCM R 1068 and 2005 CLC 1758 and argued that there being no jurisdictional or other defect in the impugned judgments and orders warranting, interference of this court through its extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the writ petition be dismissed.
9. We have considered the respective submissions and are of the view that the tenant-petitioner who was a tenant in the property prior to execution of alleged agreement to sell dated 18-1-2004 and thus continued as such even after the said date because there is no stipulation in the said deed that with the execution of the said deed the relationship of landlord and tenant would come to an end and even the learned counsel for the petitioner conceded this position at the bar. The respondent No,1 has purchased the property through registered sale-deed and the two courts below on proper appraisal of evidence recorded in the case have drawn conclusions, which are supported by record of the case as well as the law settled on the subject. In the case of Barkat Masih v. Manzoor Ahmad (deceased) through L.Rs, 2001 SCMR 1068 the honourable apex court held that if a tenant denied the proprietary rights of the landlord, then he is bound to first deliver the possession of premises in question and then to contest his proprietary rights in the property and if ultimately he succeeds in getting relief from the court and decree passed in his favour, only then he can enforce the same according to law with all its consequences. Similarly, in the case reported as 2005 CLC 1758 titled Hafiz Altaf Ahmad v. Haji Ahmad Din it was held:--- "(b) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)--S.13---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), 5.12-Ejectment petition and suit for specific performance of contract---Ejectment petition under West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 and a suit for specific performance by tenant, were two distinct proceedings---Effect of ejectment order could not be diluted by mere pendency of a civil suit on the basis of an agreement to sell---If an ejectment order was against a tenant, same was necessarily required to be executed in letter and spirit---However, tenant, if succeeded in his litigation, could get possession restored through'execution of his decree--- Neither the two proceedings were required to be consolidated nor the effect of ejectment order could be diluted on the ground of pendency of a civil suit filed by tenant."
10. The principle of law involved is settled by repeated pronouncements of courts administering justice and there can be no two opinions about it. The two courts below have on proper appraisal of evidence and application of law derived conclusions, which call for no interference by this court in its extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction.
11. The case-law relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant is not attracted to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
' Thus finding no merits in this writ petition the same is dismissed. No orders as to costs.