' SYED KAZIM RAZA SHAMS!, J.--- This second rent appeal is directed against an order dated 8-1- 2004 passed by Mr. Tariq Mehmood Malik, learned Addl. District Judge, Sialkot, whereby he maintained the order dated 8-3-1994 passed by Mr. Khalid Mehmood Ranjha, learned Rent Controller, Sialkot, whereby he proceeded to dismiss the ejectment petition filed by Khalida Ismail and otheRs,
2. Dr. Khalida Ismail and others filed an application under section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 against the City Education Board on the ground of wilful default in the payment of rent. During the pendency of the ejectment petition respondents Nos.2 to 5, legal heirs of Muhammad Ismail Qureshi, were impleaded in the ejectment petition. The petition was contested by respondent No,1, City Education Board, and respondents Nos.2 to 5 by filing separate replies.
3. There are some important facts, which are to be noted before proceeding further. A Property bearing No,1/1299 (rented premises) was originally allotted to Mst. Kalsoom-un-Nisa in an earmarking scheme in the year 1959, who joined her real nephew Muhammad Ismail Qureshi through an association deed and surrendered her rights in his favour. Later on one Gulab Din, the occupant of a portion of the property, got issued the P.T.D. In respect of house in his favour from the Settlement Department and surrendered his rights in favour of Mian Muhammad Ismail, now represented through the ejectment petitioneRs, After the death of Muhammad Ismail Qureshi his legal heirs, respondents Nos.2 to 5 pursued the matter. The PTD issued in favour of Gulab Din and Mian Muhammad Ismail was cancelled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported as "Muhammad Ismail Qureshi through his legal heirs v. Gulab Din and others" (1988 SCM R 1001). The judgment was delivered on 19-3-1988, whereby P.T.D. Issued in favour of Muhammad Ismail Qureshi was restored in respect of the property now in dispute. Later on, as per record, the Settlement Department issued P.T.O. In favour of Muhammad Ismail Qureshi by implementing judgment of apex Court. As per record, Mian Muhammad Ismail had rented out the premises to City Education Board in the year 1981 during the pendency of the matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In these circumstances, the legal heirs of Mian Muhammad Ismail had filed the ejectment petition against City Education Board.
4. Both these sets of the respondents i.e. City Education Board and legal heirs of Muhammad Ismail Qureshi in their respective replies highlighted the afore-noted facts of cancellation of the P.T.D, more particularly, respondent No,1 City Education Board denied the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant with the ejectment petitioneRs, It was asserted in the written replies that the Board is not the wilful defaulter in the payment of rent, which is depositing the rent regularly in the Court under the orders of the Court. The stance of respondents Nos.2 to 5 in their written reply is that after the cancellation of the P.T.D. Issued in favour of Mian Muhammad Ismail through Gulab Din, the respondents have become the owners of the property in dispute and in this regard they had served notice under section 13-A of the Ordinance ibid upon respondent No,1 informing it about the change of the ownership and demanded the rent.
5. Learned Rent Controller, out of the pleadings of the parties, framed as many as six issues including the one regarding existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the ejectment petitioners and respondent No,
1. Both the parties led their respective oral as well documentary evidence on the issues.
6. Learned Rent Controller after analyzing the whole record and evidence produced by the parties reached at conclusion that the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between the ejectment petitioners and respondent No,1 after 19-3-1988, the date of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as the ejectment petitioners did not remain as owner of the demised premises, thereafter as such had no locus standi to file the ejectment petition. The ejectment petition was ultimately dismissed.
7. Being dissatisfied with the findings of the learned Rent Controller, the same were assailed in the first appeal. Learned First Appellate Court also dismissed the appeal on the same premises as find favour with the learned Rent Controller, vide judgment impugned in the instant second appeal.
8. The parties have been heard at length and whole record has been examined with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. The core issue, that covers all other issues, is the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the appellants and respondent No,
1. There is no denial of the fact that Mian Muhammad Ismail was the owner of the property, who held the said title till 19- 3-1988. During this period he had rented out the premises to respondent No,1 in the capacity of landlord. Later on when Civil Appeal No,150 of 1975 was decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 19-3-1988, Mian Muhammad Ismail or for that matter his legal heirs did not stand on the platform of the landlord. The title of the property changed hands and the legal heirs of Muhammad Ismail Qureshi were held to be entitled to the property in dispute. The Settlement Department, in view of this finding of the apex Court, had also issued P.T.O. In favour of respondents Nos.2 to 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that till date no P.T.D has been issued in favour of respondents Nos.2 to 5, thus the appellants would be deemed to be the landlord of the property, is untenable argument for the reason that the issuance of the P.T.D. In favour of respondents Nos.2 to 5 is merely a ministerial act to be performed by a department. This fact alone is not sufficient to hold that respondents Nos.2 to 5 are not the owners of the demised premises. For that purpose Provisional Transfer Order issued in favour of respondents Nos.2 to 5 holds good as a title deed whereunder they have been declared as owner of the property in dispute. The second contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the possession of the property has not been handed over to respondents Nos.2 to 5, therefore, till that time respondent No,1 would be a tenant under the appellants is equally not a good argument, for that reason that respondents Nos.2 to 5 are holding a title under the orders of the apex Court and by acting upon those orders of the apex Court the Settlement Department has issued a P.T.O. In their favour, thus they are not only the owners of the property in dispute but are also the landlord for that purpose while respondent No,1 is holding the possession of the demised premises on behalf of respondents Nos.2 to 5, as such respondents Nos.2 to 5 are in symbolic possession of the disputed property. The third contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that respondents Nos.2 to 5 are only entitled for allotment of the house along with its three times plinth area while the respondents are in possession of the more land, has no substance for the simple reason that this question is not within the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller to determine, as such this argument cannot be taken into consideration in the rent jurisdiction.
9. Learned Rent Controller has comprehensively, discussed all these points in its order, which are based upon the sound appreciation of the record, which determination has validly affirmed by the learned First Appellate Court.
10. The remaining issues framed by the learned Rent Controller are subservient of the core issue of relationship of landlord and tenant, which has been decided in negative by the learned Rent Controller and affirmed by the learned First Appellate Court, as such there is no need to discuss the findings of the Court on the other issues.
11. The upshot of the above discussion is that the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below are based upon sound appreciation of the evidence on the record as well as the case-law cited at the bar, as such no interference by this Court is required in the same. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.