ORDER CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J. This first appeal against order has been directed against the order dated 3-7-2006 passed by learned Additional Rent Controller, Rawalpindi Cantonment.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos.1 to 3 Mst. Asiya Fayyaz filed an eviction petition for the eviction from the Shop No. 60-1/15 Khan Chambers Canning Road, Rawalpindi. Mst. Asiya in her ejectment petition stated that she is owner and landlady of Shop No.60-A/5 Khan Chambers, Canning Road, Rawalpindi. The demised premises were rented out to the respondent company vide lease agreement dated 10-5-1997 @ Rs. 16000 per month with the condition of increase in rent at the rate of a 10% every year. The ownership of the company was purchased by present management in July, 1999. In This manner, the rent from 1st July, 1999 came to Rs.21,296. However, the respondent kept on paying Rs.17,600 per month till May, 2002. The respondent has failed to pay any rent whatsoever about the demised premises after May, 2002. At present a sum of Rs. 626,518 is outstanding as arrears of rent. The petitioner requires the demised premises for her bona fide personal use and occupation as she wants to run her on business through her husband who is jobless for the last two years. The respondents are trying to sublet the premises and for the said purposes, they have advertised 'in Daily newspaper Jung dated 20-5- 2002. The respondent was asked to clear the arrears of rent and hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the demised premises to the petitioner in view of her personal bona fide requirement but they have refused to do the needful. Hence this petition.
3. The main ground taken by the appellant for eviction of suit shop was personal bona fide need and default in the payment of rent.
4. The eviction petition was hotly contested by the respondents who denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. During the pendency of ejectment petition Mst. Asiya Fayyaz died and her legal heirs were impleaded in the eviction petition. The learned Rent Controller framed two issues:- -
(1) Whether there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties?
(2) Relief.
5. That after recording of oral as well as documentary evidence of the parties, vide order dated 3- 7-2006, learned Additional Rent Controller Rawalpindi Cantonment accepted the ejectment petition and directed the respondents to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession within 60 days from the announcement of order, hence this first appeal against order.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant inter alia contends that impugned order is against law on the subject and facts. The order under appeal is result of gross misreading and non-reading of evidence, it is based on surmises and conjecture. Relationship of landlord and tenant does not exist between the parties. The fact of the matter is that admittedly the appellant company was owned by the deceased respondent along with her husband and others which was sold to Iftikhar Hussain Ch. And Nadeem Sarwar and others as per Form 29 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, through an agreement Exh.R3 and received a sum of Rs.3.1 Millions. It would be pertinent to submit here that the appellant company was suffering losses and the respondent along with her husband taking Nadeem Sarwar into confidence who was then an employee of the appellant's company, persuaded him to look forward for some prospective buyer in order to collect a sum of Rs.5 Millions which could not be done and ultimately the company was sold out to Iftikhar Hussain Ch. And Nadeem Sarwar etc. For a total consideration of Rs. 3.5 Million which was received by the respondent along with others. In this view of the matter letting out the property in dispute to the appellants company is nothing but an afterthought of the deceased and her husband. Further contends that appellant as well as landlord filed application to produce additional evidence.
Learned Additional Rent Controller allowed the application of respondents and did not decide the application to produce additional evidence submitted by appellant and passed the final order of ejectment against the appellant which is a glaring discrimination and not sustainable under the law as the learned Additional Rent Controller was supposed to first decide the pending application of appellant before announcing final order. In This behalf, learned counsel for the appellant has relied on Muhammad Umer v. Muhammad Qasim and another (1991 SCM R 1232), Mst. Imtiaz Begum v. Sultan Jan and others (2008 SCM R 1259) and Pak Carpet Industries Limited v. Government of Sindh and 2 others (1993 CLC 334) and has prayed that the impugned order be set aside, case be remanded back to the learned Additional Rent Controller with a direction to first decide the pending application of appellant and after affording an opportunity to produce additional evidence, the matter be decided.
7. Conversely, learned counsel for respondents has vehemently opposed this appeal and contends that Mst. Asiya Fayyaz was the absolute owner of suit shop who sold the company and not the suit shop. Relationship of landlord and tenant are fully established. The respondent needs suit shop for personal need. The appellant is a wilful defaulter who has not paid the rent of suit premises after 2002. Further contends that the provisions of C.P.C. And Evidence Act are not applicable while deciding an eviction petition. Therefore, arguments of learned counsel for appellant that the Additional Rent Controller has announced final judgment before deciding his application for producing additional evidence is not supported by any law. The F.A.O. Is without any substance, it be dismissed.
8. Arguments heard. Record perused.
9. Perusal of record highlights that deceased Asiya Fayyaz was the owner of suit shop who filed eviction petition against the respondent-company for the eviction from Shop No. 60-A/5, Khan Chamber, Canning Road, Rawalpindi on the grounds of bona fide personal need and that appellant has not paid the rent of demised premises from May, 2002. Both the parties produced their evidence after framing of sole issue. Exh. R3 is an important document which is an agreement providing the entire detail of transaction including the assets of company. It does not contain about the mortgage of demised shop or payment of any mortgage money or any sort of other transaction except a clear-cut sale of shares. Agreement R-3 was executed between share-holder of the company and new share-holders regarding the sale and purchase of shares of company.
The tenant was not the party to Exh.R-3 which is an unrebutted proof that Mst. Asiya Fayyaz represented by respondents Nos.1 to 3 was the absolute owner of the suit shop and contention of appellant is misconceived about the sale of shop.
10. Record further highlights that appellant has not denied the payment of rent to respondents which evidence clearly establishes that appellant has neither tendered nor paid the rent of the demised shop since 2002.
11. The next contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant that learned Additional Rent Controller has announced final judgment without deciding his application for additional evidence, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law is misconceived. Perusal of application reveals that petitioner has filed the instant application with the following prayer:- - "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the attached documents evidencing the payment of total sum of Rs.11,13,211 which has been paid by the present Directors of the applicant-Company on behalf of the old Directors including the applicant (Ms. siya Fayyaz) and her husband; when they were running the business and the said sum has to be paid by them."
The scrutiny of this application highlights that it was filed just to frustrate and linger on proceedings. The proposed additional evidence had no nexus with the eviction petition.
Particularly, when agreement Exh.R-3 was produced. Even otherwise neither the Procedure of Civil Code nor Evidence Act are applicable in the matters proceeded by learned Additional Rent Controller, as a Rent Controller has merely to hold an inquiry into matter but mode of inquiry left to him. Similarly, parties have no right to produce such evidence before him as they desire. Learned Additional Rent Controller can rightly ignore frivolous application meant for causing delay in disposal of such proceedings. In fact proceedings before Rent Controller were such as are conducted by an Executive Officer, so the contention of learned counsel for appellant that Rent Controller before passing order shall have disposed of his pending application for producing additional evidence is of no consequence. Law reported by learned counsel for the appellant is not applicable in the instant case.
12. As a result of above discussion first appeal against order is devoid of any merit. Same is dismissed and the order passed by learned Additional Rent A Controller Rawalpindi. Cantonment is upheld..