' ATTAULLAH KHAN, J.---Through this writ petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, the petitioner, Habib Ullah, has sought the indulgence of this Court to set at naught the judgments and decrees dated 21-3-2009 passed against him by the learned Civil Judge-V/Rent Controller D.I. Khan in favour of respondent No,1 which was affirmed in appeal by the learned Additional District Judge-III, D.I. Khan vide order dated 15-10-2009.
2. Facts of the case giving rise to this petition in brief are that Khuda Bakhsh deceased, who was the husband of respondent No,1, was the owner of suit house, which was given by him to her wife, i.e, respondent No,1 in lieu of dower and she with regard to the ownership of the suit house, has also obtained a decree from a Court of competent jurisdiction; that the petitioner was tenant in the aforesaid house; that due to the default in payment of rent, necessitated the institution of ejectment petition during the course of which petitioner was agreed to pay monthly rent regularly, and ultimately culminating into withdrawal of the ejectment petition; that subsequently again defaulted and declined to hand over the possession of the suit house to the respondent; that on the following grounds the respondent seeks eviction of the petitioner from the suit house:--
(i) that the petitioner is defaulter in payment of monthly rent from the last three years;
(ii) that the respondent is in personal need of the suit house; and
(iii) that appellant has damaged and destroyed the suit house requiring repairs; ' that finally on the complete refusal of petitioner to pay outstanding rent and to deliver the possession of the suit house, the present ejectment petition was instituted.
3. Defendant was summoned to the Court; on attendance he filed written statement. The diverse pleadings of the parties resulted into the following issues.
ISSUES:--
(1) Whether the petitioner has got a cause of action? OPP.
(2) Whether the petition in hand is incompetent in its present form? OPD
(3) Whether the petitioner is not owner of the suit house? OPD
(4) Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exist between the parties? OPP
(5) Whether the respondent is defaulter? OPP
(6) Whether the suit house is required to the petitioner on the ground of personal need? OPP
(7) Whether the petitioner is entitled for eviction of respondent? OPP
8. Relief.
4. Pro and contra evidence was led by the parties in support of their contention. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, the learned Rent Controller accepted the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 21-3-2009, which judgment and decree were impugned before the appellate forum, who vide its judgment and decree dated 15-10-2009 maintained the judgment of the learned trial Court.
3. Mr. Muhammad Waqaa. s Alam Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently argued that an issue with regard to the denial of the relationship of landlord and tenant should have been decided at the first instance but this fact has been overlooked though required disposal at the outset; he urged that deceased Khuda Bakhsh had orally gifted the suit house in favour of his sister Mst. Rahmat Bibi wherein he has agreed that she would be considered its owner posthumously (after the death of Haji Khuda Bakhsh) and as such she is residing in the said house from the last 12 years; he also contended that title of respondent has not been confirmed as yet as she is not the sole owner of the suit house having other co-sharer, i.e,, brothers and sisters of deceased and thus the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below are illegal, against the facts, not sustainable and liable to be reversed.
4. Mr. Muhammad Waheed Anjum, learned counsel for respondent, has supported the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below in favour of her client i.e,, Mst. Rukhsana Bibi, respondent No, 1.
5. We have given our dispassionate consideration to the materials available on record in the lights of arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
6. A crucial point in this case is that as to whether the relationship between the tenant and landlord exist between the parties or not. For the reasons that the petitioner Habib Ullah while submitting his reply to the ejectment petition before trial Court has denied the relationship on the ground that title of petitioner (respondent) has not been confirmed. So Issue No,4 regarding the relationship between the landlord and tenant was also framed. The parties have produced record of a previous Suit bearing No,4/1 of 1998 of 2007 instituted by the petitioner against Imam Bakhsh and eleven others seeking declaration and possession in respect of the property on the strength of dower deed. The record of that case reveals that the suit was decreed in favour of Mst. Rukhsana Bibi, respondent herein. It is further clear from that record that Habib Ullah, petitioner had submitted an application for the deposit for rent before A that Court which shows that he is in possession of the suit house as tenant. The learned Court has believed this document and decided issue in affirmative and accordingly decreed the suit.
7. We have considered the record under discussion. The trial Court has correctly held that the relationship of tenant and landlord exists between the parties on the strength of an application submitted by the present petitioner for deposit of rent. Dower deed placed on the record of earlier suit decided on 23-5-2009 also reflects the ownership of the present respondent regarding the suit house. Moreover, the submission of application in the earlier suit filed by for the present petitioner through which he prayed for deposit of rent also prove that he was tenant. So in these circumstances, he was rightly held to be a tenant.
8. In view of our above discussion, we have come across no illegality, non or misreading of evidence or violation of any right of the petitioner, therefore, the petition in hand being without force, is dismissed.