ORDER SYED AKHLAQ AHMAD, J.-- Through this writ. Haji Abdul Rahecm/petitioner has challenged the validity of order dated 8-7-2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge Lahore whereby he dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the order dated 19-11-2009 passed by Special Judge Rent. Lahore whereby the ejectment petition filed by Mst. Ummat-ul-Qayyum/respondent No.1 against the petitioner was accepted and he was ordered to vacate the disputed premises within three months. In case he fails to deliver the possession within the said period. Respondent No.1 will be entitled to get it vacated in accordance with law. The petitioner was also directed to pay the rent at the rate of Rs.18000 per month till the vacation of the suit property. Respondent No.1 was also held entitled to recover the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 18000 per month since the institution of ejectment petition i.e. 27-6-2009 till vacation of the premises.
2. Contents of the writ petition show that on 27-6-2009 Mst. Ummat-ul-Qayyum/respondent No.1 filed ejectment petition against Haji Abdul Raheem/ petitioner from the upper portion of house No.38. Allama Iqbal Road, Ghari Shahu Lahore comprising of 5 rooms. Kitchen, bath rooms, porch on ground floor, courtyard etc., on the ground of expiry of tenancy, default in payment of rent, structural changes in the premises and causing damage to the property.
3. The petitioner Haji Abdul Raheem, moved an application for leave to defend on the ground that he is occupant of the premises as a lawful mortgagee and he has documentary and qualitative evidence to disprove the averments made in the ejectment petition. The application was strongly opposed by Mst.Ummat-ul Qayyum/respondent No.1 vide her reply. After hearing both the learned counsel for the parties, the application for leave to defend of the petitioner was dismissed while the ejectment petition filed by Mst. Ununat-ul-Qayyum/respondent No.1 was accepted and the petitioner was ordered to hand over the vacant possession of the, suit property by the learned Special Judge Rent Lahore vide. His order dated 19-11-2009. Against this decision the petitioner filed appeal which was also dismissed by the learned Additional. District Judge Lahore vide order dated 8-7-2010. Now the petitioner/tenant has challenged the concurrent findings of both the courts below before this Court through the present writ.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/Haji Abdul Raheem contends that the relationship of landlord and tenant was denied by the petitioner in his application for leave to defend in view of the mortgage deed of the suit premises dated 30-10-1999 executed in his favour by Junaid Ahmed son of Mst. Unnuat-ul-Qayyum/respondent No.1. The learned Rent Controller had, therefore, no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. Moreover ejectment petition based on tenancy, does not conform to the provisions of the Punjab Rented Premises Ordinance, 2007. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order of ejectment dated 19-11-2009 passed by the learned Special Judge Rent Lahore and judgment dated 8-7-2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge Lahore be set aside and the ejectment petition filed by Mst.Ummat-ul-Qayyum/petitioner be dismissed.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1/ Mst. Ummat-ul-Qayyum opposed this writ and strongly defended the concurrent findings of ejectment passed by both the courts below.
6. I have considered the arguments, advanced by both the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.
7. Haji Abdul Raheem/petitioner has denied the relationship of landlord and tenant -between the parties by claiming himself to be the mortgagee of the suit property from one Junaid Ahmad son of Mst. Ummat-ul-Qayyum/respondent No.1 vide alleged mortgage deed dated 30-10-1999.
Admittedly it is not a registered document. Further it has not been executed by Mst. Ummat-ul- Qayyum/ respondent No.1 who is the actual owner/ landlord of the whole property which stood constructed over land measuring 1 kanal and 157 Sqr.Ft. And is situated on the main road Ghari Shahu Tehsil and District Lahore vide registered sale-deed dated 2-6-1959. The petitioner has failed to produce any document of title of the suit property or part of the suit property in favour of Junaid Ahmad son of Mst. Ummat-ul-Qayyum/respondent No.1 to establish genuineness of the mortgage deed dated 30-10-1999 in his favour. As conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in suit for recovery of amount on the basis of mortgage deed, Junaid Ahmad has denied the execution of any such document and termed it to be forged and bogus one. In view of above, execution of any valid mortgage deed of suit property in favour of the petitioner stands not proved in this case.
8. It is interesting to note that the petitioner has admitted the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties in preliminary objection No.3 of his written statement. Again reply of Para No.1 on merits of the ejectment petition has not been given and thereby he again admitted Mst. Ummat-ul- Qayyum/respondent dent No.1 to be owner as well as landlord of the suit property. The fact that respondent No. 1/Mst. Ummat-ul-Qayytun was owner of the whole property was in the notice of the petitioner from the day one. This fact is proved from the registered sale-deed dated 10-1-2001 through which the petitioner purchased four shops on the ground floor having land measuring 4 marlas from her. The petitioner or his counsel never moved any application either before the trial Court or before the first appellate Court stating that the admission of tenancy in the reply filed by him is due to typographical mistake. The petitioner is thus, barred from taking this objection before this Court for the first time in his constitutional petition. In this regard I rely upon Province of Punjab v. Ashiq Muhammad Khan, PLD 1990 Lahore 153, Muhammad Nawaz v. Fida Hussain and another, 1994 CLC 1487 (Lahore), Illamud-Din v. Syed Sarfraz Hussain, 2001 SCMR 1225 and Muhammad Feroze and ethers v. Muhammad Jamaat Ali, 2006 SCMR 1304. In this way, oral tenancy in between the parties in the suit premises stood fully proved. Since the petitioner denied this relationship without any sound basis, he has been rightly held liable to straightway ejectment. In this regard, I rely upon Abdul Raseed Khan v. Muhammad Saeed Siddique, 1997 CLC 623 (Karachi), Haji Jumma Khan v. Haji Zarin Khan PLD 1999 Supreme Court 1101, Gul Rehman's Khan v. Shirian Khan, 2004 SCMR 592, Rafiq Ahmad through General Attorney v. Rent Controller, Jacobabad and 3 others, 2006 CLC 989 (Karachi) and Mst. Sarwar Begum v. Muhammad Ishaq and others PLD 2009 Supreme Court 45.
Factual controversy which stood decided in concurrent findings by both the courts below cannot be agitated before this Court through writ. In this regard I rely upon Arshad Jawaid Khan v.
Government of Pakistan though Wafaqi Mohtasib and 2 others, 1995 MLD 1393 (Karachi) and Faisal Naseem and another v. Government of Punjab, Local Government and Community Development Department, 2008 CLC 640 (Lahore). One of the grounds of ejectment in this case was the expiry of the period of tenancy. This being so, it is but obvious that an expired tenancy cannot be brought in conformity with the provisions of the ordinance which is related to tenancies which come into existence after promulgation of the said Ordinance or which are already existing. Objection of the learned counsel regarding maintainability of ejectment petition on that count has, therefore, no force.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any misreading or non-reading of material evidence which might have affected the concurrent findings of ejectment recorded by both the courts below which otherwise cannot be disturbed by this Court in its writ jurisdiction.
10. For all these reasons, I am of the view that no case for interference with the impugned order and judgment of the courts below in exercise of constitutional power of this Court is made out. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed with costs.