' MIAN SHAHID IQBAL, J.--- Case of the petitioner is that respondent/landlord filed an ejectment petition on 30-10-2007, appellant/ tenant filed written statement on 28-4-2008 wherein relationship of landlord and tenant was denied by him. Out of divergent pleadings of the parties three issues were framed on 19-2-2009.
2. In order to support the averments of the ejectment petition respondent/landlord appeared as A.W.1, he produced Muhammad Nadeem as A.W.2 and Muhammad Saghir as A.W.3.
3. On the reverse appellant/tenant appeared as R.W.1 and produced one Abdul Hameed as R.W.2.
Learned trial Court after recording evidence and finally hearing the case decided Issue No,1 in favour, of respondent/landlord thereby holding that relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties and as such on 16-1-2010 judgment and decree for ejectment was passed.
4. Appellant on 21-1-2010 filed appeal against the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Rent Controller, which appeal was finally dismissed on 3-4-2010. Another application for producing additional evidence was also dismissed on the said date vide a separate order, hence this appeal.
5. Learned counsel for appellant submits that both the courts below while passing the impugned judgments and decrees have fallen in error by accepting the ejectment petition and dismissing the appeal on the ground that appellant had earlier executed an oral agreement to sell with one Abdul Hayee Farani, in that regard a suit for specific performance is pending and in the said suit successors of Abdul Hayee Farani through their written statement admitted the execution of oral agreement. Learned counsel further submits that judgments passed by both the courts below are based on surmises and conjectures, hence not sustainable and liable to be set aside.
6. On the reverse respondent in person submits that he has purchased the property in dispute through attorney of legal heirs of Abdul Hayee Farani, further submits that as present appellant was earlier a tenant with the predecessor-in-interest of the persons from whom the respondent has purchased the property, hence he became a tenant with the present respondent, as such relationship of landlord and tenant exists and due to non-payment of rent he became a defaulter.
7. I have heard learned counsel for appellant, respondent in person and with their able assistance have gone through the available record.
8. The case of appellant is that he executed oral agreement to sell with legal heirs of Abdul Hayee Farani; in respect of which a suit for specific performance is pending. It is a settled law that mere execution of agreement does not bar for filing of the ejectment petition. Reference is made to PLD 2009 SC 546, relevant portion of which is reproduced as under:--- "(5) It is a principle too well-established by now that a sale agreement did not itself create any interest or even a charge on the property in dispute; that unlike the law in England, the law in Pakistan did not recognize any distinction between the legal and equitable estates; that a sale agreement did not confer any title on the person in whose favour such an agreement was executed and in fact it only granted him the right to sue for such a title and further that such an agreement did not affect the rights of any third party involved in the matter. It may be added that till such time that a person suing for ownership of a property obtains a decree for specific performance in his favour, such a person cannot be heard to deny the title of the landlord or to deprive the landlord of any benefits accruing to him or arising out of the property which is the subject-matter of the litigation. Postponing the ejectment proceedings to await the final outcome of a suit for specific performance would be causing serious prejudice to a landlord and such a practice, if approved by this Court, would only give, a licence to unscrupulous tenants to defeat the interests of the landlords who may be filing suits for specific performance only to delay the inevitable and to throw spanners in the wheels of law and justice."
' This Court in 2005 CLC 1758, held as under:-- "It is evident from the above declaration of the honourable Supreme Court that an ejectment petition under the Rent Laws and a suit for specific performance by a tenant are two distinct proceedings. The effect of ejectment order cannot be diluted by mere pendency of a civil suit on the basis of an agreement to sell. If an ejectment order is passed against a tenant, the same is necessarily required to be executed in lettei and spirit. However, the tenant if succeeds in his litigation can get the possession restored through execution of his decree."
9. Moreover, it is not denied on record that respondent/landlord did not purchase the property from legal heirs of deceased and present appellant was earlier tenant with them hence as it has been established on the record that appellant was tenant with Abdul. Hayee Farani and subsequently to his legal heirs, therefore the respondent has stepped into the shoes of owners after purchasing the property.
10. Thus both the courts below have rightly held that the relationship of landlord and tenant exists, hence the judgments passed by both the courts are in consonance with law. Moreover, learned counsel has failed to point out any illegality, irregularity, jurisdictional defect or error in the judgments passed by both the courts below.
11. In this view of the matter, this SAO fails and is dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.