' HAFIZ ABDUL REHMAN ANSARI, J.---Through this writ petition the petitioner Muhammad Zahid son of Muhammad Ishaq has assailed the impugned judgment dated 4-9-2009 and orders dated 30- 32009 and 15-7-2009.
2. Brief history of the case is that Mst. Surrayya Begum filed an application for ejectment against Muhammad Naeem under section 15 of Rent Premises Ordinance, 2007 in respect of Property No,2259/2-28, situated outside Bohr Gate Tehsil and District Multan. The respondent became defaulter and the petition for ejectment was filed, wherein, it was prayed that rent amounting to Rs.1,89,000 from July, 2008 he got recovered and afterwards Rs.77,000 per month be also decreed.
Muhammad Naeem filed an application for leave to defend the ejectment petition on the grounds that as per arbitration decision dated 15-2-2008, the possession of the suit property was handed over to the petitioner Mst. Surrayya on 6-6-2008 and he has no concern with the suit property and advance was with petitioner Mst. Surrayya Bibi. The learned trial Court dismissed the application of Muhammad Naeem and accepted the main application vide impugned order dated 3-3-2009.
Muhammad Naeem respondent filed an appeal against the impugned order dated 3-3-2009 passed by the learned trial court whereby, learned Addl. District Judge, Multan dismissed the same.
3. On 3-9-2008 Muhammad Zahid the present petitioner instituted a suit for possession through specific performance of agreement to sell to the effect that Mst. Surrayya Bibi sold her property vide oral agreement to sell against Rs.26,00,000 after receiving Rs. 2,00,000 as earnest money through her general power of attorney. He was put in possession and the target date for executing the agreement was fixed as 15-7-2008 but the defendant refused to honour the agreement but the learned Civil Judge dismissed the said suit vide judgment dated 8-3-2010 on account of non- production of evidence. Then during execution proceedings, the present petitioner Muhammad Zahid filed objection petition was dismissed by the learned Judge vide order dated 15-7-2009.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the orders are not only against law and facts but also contrary to the well-established principles of justice. He has further contended that in matters of rent, possession is of fundamental sequence. The suit property is admittedly in the possession of the petitioner as learned Appellate Court declared that respondent No,3 Mst.
Surrayya Bibi was competent to file execution petition for the ejectment of the suit property against respondent No,4 namely Muhammad Naeem Khan. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that despite being in possession of the property in question as a bona fide purchaser, the petitioner has neither been associated with the ejectment proceedings nor impleaded as party being necessary and property party. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the impugned orders appear to have been passed mechanically, arbitrarily and without application of judicial mind to the peculiar circumstances of the case, hence, the same are based on surmises and conjectures. Learned counsel for the petitioner has finally argued that the impugned judgment dated 4-9-2009 and orders dated 30-3-2009 and 15-7-2009 may kindly be declared to be illegal, without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
5. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently controverted the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and contends that petitioner Zahid claims the agreement of sell on the basis of oral general power of attorney but the same should always be in black and white because the Superior Courts have time and again held that such document between the parties should be executed and without registration, it has not legal sanctity. He further contends that in the garb of agreement to sell, unless there is a valid decree from the competent Court, the ejectment proceedings cannot be frustrated. He further contends that no one claim ownership of property by entertain into sale agreement because sheer agreement of sale by itself does not create any interest in or charge on such property. He finally contends that the impugned judgment dated 4-9-2009 passed by learned Addl. District Judge and orders dated 30-3-2009 and 15-7-2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge/Rent Controller are based on sound and cogent reasoning therefore, this Court should not interfere into the same. He has prayed for dismissal of this writ petition.
6. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record minutely.
7. I deem it sine qua non to reproduce the concluding para of the judgment dated 4-9-2009 passed by the learned District Judge, Multan as followed:-- "From the arguments and record I am of the considered view that admittedly, the possession is not with the appellant and the respondent can file execution petition for the ejectment on the suit land and to this extent, the appeal stands dismissed. So far as the rent of Rs.1,89,000 concerned, the same is also admitted one and the appellant is bound to pay the same to the respondent as the rent was settled between the parties. The only question which is to he resolved is handing over the possession of the suit property to the respondent/petitioner and its rent according to the arbitration decision. As in the application for leave to defend the appellant took the plea that he handed over the possession to the petitioner/respondent on 6-6-2008 and this requires evidence which the learned trial court has not bothered to entertain. Though the Punnchayatnama is admitted between the parties and the main thing which irks is the fine imposed in the Panchayatnam. For the purpose, the truth is to be sorted out from recording of the evidence. So, the appeal is only accepted to this extent that the learned trial court give an opportunity to the appellant to submit written reply only to the extent of handing over the possession of the suit property to the respondent and the burden will be on the appellant to prove that he handed over the possession to the respondent on 6-6-2008 after, giving them an opportunity to both the parties to adduce their evidence on this point and to this extent, the file is remanded to the learned trial court to decide this point after framing an issue on this point and to the extent of rest of will he bound to pay rent of Rs.1,89,000 to the respondent and respondent will be competent to file execution petition for the ejectment of suit property. The appeal is partly accepted. The file of the learned trial Court be sent hack immediately where the parties shall appear on 10-9-2009. File of this court be consigned to the record room after its due completion."
8. Similarly, it also seems inevitable to reproduce para.3 of the impugned order dated 15-7-2009 passed by learned Civil, Judge/Rent, Controller Multan as follows:-- "Perusal of file reveals that present objection petitioner instituted a quit for specific performance on the basis of oral agreement to sell against respondent on 3-9-2008, wherein, decree- holder/respondent submitted her written statement on 3-11-2008, wherein this fact was mentioned that ejectment petition is pending against Muhammad Naeem Khan. The ejectment petition was instituted on 18-7-2008 and same was decided on 30-3-2009. So, this fact is worth-mentioning that present objection petitioner despite having knowledge of pendency of ejectment petition intentionally did not file any application to become party in the ejectment petition but at the stage of execution petition, present objection petitioner has filed application only to delay the execution proceedings. From the conduct of objection petitioner, it seems that purpose/object of the present objection petition is only to delay the execution proceedings."
9. Learned Civil Judge has very rightly discussed the conduct of present petitioner Muhammad Zahid. It is clear like broad-daylight sun that petitioner Muhammad Zahid had the knowledge of pendency of ejectment petition but intentionally did not file an application to become party and he filed the objection petition with mala fide intention just to linger on the ejectment proceedings.
10. Likewise, it is pertinent to reproduce para.4 of the order, dated 30-3-2009 passed by learned Rent Controller as under:- "Perusal of file reveals that parties have admitted relationship of landlord and tenant but respondent has alleged that he has already vacated the shop in compliance of Arbitration decision dated 15-2-1998. Photocopy of the Arbitration decision has been attached by the respondent with the application for leave to defend and perusal of same reveals that no reference about the advance amount has been made in Arbitration decision. At the same time, perusal of copy of agreement of tenancy reveals that there is no reference of the advance amount given to the petitioner. The petitioner is still claiming that respondent is in possession of rented premises, but respondent is claiming conversely. In these circumstances, according to Arbitration decision and agreement of tenancy, the respondent is not entitled to prolong his possession over rented premises. As far as, amount of advance is concerned, it is crystal clear from perusal of file that no advance was given to the petitioner. In these circumstances, there is no sufficient ground for production of oral evidence and leave to contest is refused. Perusal of file reveals that Arbitration decision dated 15-2-2008 has been admitted by the respondent, therefore, petitioner shall be entitled to recover rent as per Arbitration decision dated 15-2-2008 till vacation of the shop.
Therefore, respondent is directed to vacate the shop within 30 days. File be consigned to record room."
11. Nobody would become owner of property by entering into sale agreement because mere contract of sale by itself would not create any A interest in or charge on such property. In this respect, I am fortified by a ease reported as "Mian Munir Ahmed v. Mrs. Manzar Jafari (1987 MLD 2922) and "Abdul Karim Khan v. Mst. Zahida Khan (2008 YLR 2434).
12. The present petitioner Muhammad Zahid only filed the objection petition and suit for specific performance of contract just to linger on the ejectment proceedings and entertainment of such frivolous applications causing delay in disposal of ejectment proceedings have been discouraged by the Superior Courts. Furthermore, if a person who is not party to ejectment proceedings, the appeal filed by that person would not be competent. In this regard, I have sought guideline, in this respect, from a case reported as "Hameed Jilani v. Abdul Aziz Ghafoor" (2005 MLD 1232).
13. The nutshell of the above discussion leads to the inference that there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment, dated 4-9-2009 and orders, dated 30-3-2009 and 15-7- 2009. In fact, the petitioner Muhammad Zahid in the garb of agreement .To sell wants to usurp the property of respondent Mst. Surrayya Bibi. Even otherwise if the agreement to sell between the parties was executed, it has no legal value without registration of document on the basis of sale agreement. In this respect, I am fortified by the judgment reported in a case cited as "Ms. Shaista Shams v. Seema Begum "(PLD 2008 Karachi 424). The same have been rightly passed. I cannot interfere into the impugned judgment and orders while sitting in the writ jurisdiction. So, this writ petition having no force it is dismissed.