Muhammad Ejaz, Ashfaq Ahmad and Ryas Ahmed, sons of Muhammad Nawaz, petitioners, through the instant writ petition call in question the judgments/decrees dated 17.12.2009 and 02.04.2010.
Through the former judgment the learned Special Judge (Rent), Multan, accepted the ejectment petition of the Respondents Nos. 3 to 5, Khalil Ahmad, Shakil Ahmad and Jameel Ahmad sons of Shabbir Ahmad-landlords and the petitioners-tenants were directed to vacate the rented premises within 30 days, whereas through the latter judgment the appeal. of the petitioners was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Multan.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the instant writ petition are that Khalil Ahmad etc., respondents herein, filed an ejectment petition on 13.05.2008 against the present petitioners alleging therein that the rented premises was originally in, the ownership of Aziz Ullah Khan, who transferred it vide registered sale deed No. 10053 dated 02.12.2006 in the name of the respondents. The petitioners were tenants of Aziz Ullah Khan and at the time of purchase of the rented property the petitioners- tenants promised to pay the rent to the respondents, but after promises they refused to pay the rent to the respondents-landlords; the respondents sent a notice of change of ownership to the petitioners through registered AD, but in spite of receipt of the said notice the petitioners did not reply to the same; rent of the premises had been fixed at Rs.6000/- per month, which was not being paid to the respondents from December, 2006 to April 2008 despite repeated demands. The respondents sought ejectment of the petitioners on the grounds of default, damage to the rented premises, non-payment of 10 per cent per annum increase in rent as well as on the ground of personal need.
3. The present petitioners filed an application for leave to contest within ten days, which was allowed vide order dated 04.03.2009. However, the petitioners in their petition for leave to contest/written statement raised a few preliminary objections and on facts denied the averments of the respondents-landlords contained in the ejectment petition. The contentions of the petitioners in their written reply were that the disputed property was in ownership of Aziz Ullah Khan, Faiz Ullah Khan and Muhammad Amin Khan; Faizullah Khan, died on 2.4.2002, Muhammad Amin Khan died issueless on 17.01.1989; the petitioners entered into an agreement to sell with Muhammad Amin, Aziz Ullah Khan and legal heirs of Faiz Ullah Khan on 2.06.2002 in consideration of Rs.
6,50,000/-, and Rs. 1,20,000/- were paid as earnest money and possession was handed over to them, therefore, they were not tenants of the respondents; the petitioners-tenants also spent an amount of Rs. 1,10,000/- on the construction and they are running their business in the name and style of Fancy Traders; the petitioners also paid property tax amounting to Rs. 18,494/- on 26.06.2003 on the insistence of previous owners and therefore they are owners in possession of the disputed property and a suit for specific performance titled as 'Muhammad Ijaz and others vs. Aziz Ullah Khan and others' is pending in the civil Court.
4. Out of the divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following two issues:--
1. Whether relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties? OPA
2. Relief.
The parties led their evidence in support of their respective versions. Plaintiffs-respondents produced three witnesses. Jameel Ahmad, one of the plaintiffs-landlords appeared as AW-1 and stated that his affidavit Exh.A-1 be read as his statement in evidence. Maqbool Ahmad son of Khuda Bakhsh appeared as AW-2, who also stated that his affidavit Exh.A/2 be read in evidence as his statement. Khurshid Ahmad son of Gul Muhammad AW-3 as well relied on his affidavit Exh.A/3 which bore his signatures. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs-landlords closed their evidence by producing in docujnentary evidence copy of sale deed Exh.A/4, copy of written statement of the suit "Ijaz etc vs. Azizullah Khan' as Exh.A-5, copy of reply of stay application as Exh.A-6, Postal Receipt No. 261 as Exh.A/7, again Postal Receipt No. 262 as Exh.A/8, photo copy of notice Mark-A/1 to A/2, copy of application under Order VII Rule 11, Exh.A-9, Copy of affidavit of Azizullah Khan Exh.A-10, copy of reply of application u/O. VII, Rule 11 CPC as Exh.A/11, copy of application for amendment of plaint of the suit as Exh.A/12 and site-plan Exh.A/13.
5. The petitioners-tenants produced Muhammad Ijaz (one of tenants) as RW-1, Muhammad Hafeez as RW-2 and Muhammad Wajid as RW-3. All the three RWs stated that they rely on the statements made by them in their affidavits, respectively Exh.R-1, R.2 and R.3. Learned counsel for the petitioners-tenants, closed the evidence of the petitioners-tenants by tendering in evidence receipt of payment of property tax Ex.R.4, copy of plaint of the suit titled Muhammad Ijaz etc. us.
Azizullah etc, with application for stay Exh.R-5, copy of sale deed No. 918 dated 9.3.1967 Exh.R.6, copy of report of the local commission as Exh.R/7, copy of death certificate of Muhammad Amin as Mark R/1 and copy of death certificate of Faizullah Khan as Mark R/2.
6. Appraising the evidence on the record, vide judgment and decree dated 17.12.2009 the learned Rent Tribunal accepted the ejectment petition and ordered the present petitioners/tenants to vacate the rented premises within a period of 30 days and the respondents/plaintiffs were declared to be entitled to recover rent from the petitioners-tenants as. per prayer. Against the said ejectment order the present petitioners filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Multan, on 12.01.2010, alleging therein that they became owners of the . disputed property as they purchased it from Faizullah Khan etc., on 02.06.2002 for consideration of Rs.6,50,000/-, and, suit for specific performance of the contract is pending before the Senior Civil Judge, Multan. The learned Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 02.04.2010 dismissed the appeal of the petitioners.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners had become owners of the property vide agreement to sell dated 2.06.2002 and paid the earnest money of Rs. 1,20,000/-; that the .suit for specific performance of the contract is pending before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Multan; that the petitioners also paid the property tax of the said disputed property therefore there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondents and the present petitioners.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at length. Both the Courts below have concurred with regard to Issue No. 1 regarding relationship of landlord and tenant and discussed in detail. The petitioners-tenants stated in their application for leave to contest that agreement to sell was executed with Aziz Ullah Khan, Muhammad Amin and legal heirs of Faiz Ullah Khan on 2.6.2002.
According to the petitioners, Muhammad Amin died issuless on 17.01.1989, therefore, agreement to sell with him could not have been executed on 2.6.2002. Further no written agreement has been produced by the petitioners. Receipt of payment of property tax Exh. R/4 has been produced, which cannot sufficiently prove the ownership of the petitioners. Further the written statement of the previous owner Exh.R/5 also reveals that the petitioners were his tenants. Both the Courts below rightly placed reliance with regard to factum of relationship of landlord and tenant on the cases reported in &di Jumma Khan vs. Haji Zarin Khan (PLD 1999 SC 1101) and Ahmad Ali alias Ali Ahmad vs. Nasar-ud-Din and another (2009 SC 453). Concurrent findings of both the Courts below cannot be disturbed unless there is any non-reading of evidence or misreading of record. The learned trial Court rightly observed that the respondents herein became owners of the disputed property and the present petitioners became the tenants under them. The denial of relationship of landlord and the tenant is always very dangerous, which the present petitioners adopted themselves.
Relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties has been duly proved through evidence. In the case reported as Ahmad All alias Ali Ahmad vs. Nasar-ud-Din and another (PLD 2009 SC 453) it was ruled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that, "If the tenant could not establish his possession over the property in dispute under the sale, he was not entitled to protect the same and the relationship of landlord and tenant would continue to exist--Record and all the facts and statements of witnesses in case proved that relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. Application of landlord for ejectment of tenant having been based on default and the required relationship of landlord and tenant having been denied by the tenant, he was liable to be ejected straightaway when the required relationship had been proved in affirmative."
9. In the case reported as Barkat Masih vs. Manzoor Ahmad (deceased) through L.Rs (2006 SCM R 1068) it was ruled that, "If a tenant denies 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."
10.In the instant case, on the change of ownership, legal notice was issued to the petitioners- tenants and they were asked to pay the rent to the respondents and also arrears from December, 2006 to April, 2008. Therefore, learned Rent Tribunal rightly accepted the ejectment petition of the respondents and the learned Additional District Judge rightly dismissed the appeal of the present petitioners-tenants. I do not like to interfere in the concurrent findings of both the Courts below.
11.For the reasons discussed above, it is held that this writ petition has no merits. Resultantly, the same is dismissed in limine. However, the respondents are directed to vacate the rented premises within 60 (sixty) days from the date of dismissal of this writ petition and hand over the vacant possession of, the premises to the landlord/respondents.