' CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.---This writ petition has been directed against the judgment dated 13-11- 2010 passed by the learned Additional, District Judge, Sahiwal.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondents Nos. 3 to 7 filed an eviction petition against the petitioner contending therein that predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos. 3 to 7, namely, Abdul Hameed Khan was owner of disputed shop. On his death, the disputed shop devolved upon respondents Nos.3 to 7 and mutation of inheritance was attested on 19-1-2009 in their favour. The petitioner who was previously a tenant under the deceased Abdul Hameed Khan, executed an agreement to sell with respondents but thereafter answering respondents backed out from the agreement and filed the eviction petition, the petitioner also filed a suit for specific performance of agreement which is pending before the competent court of law but without waiting for the result of suit for specific performance of agreement, the learned Rent Tribunal, Sahiwal accepted the eviction petition and directed the petitioner to handover possession of suit shop to respondents.
Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal and same was dismissed on 13-11-2010 by the learned Additional District Judge, Sahiwal, hence this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned orders passed by learned courts below are against the law and facts. Both the courts below have not applied their independent and judicial mind. There is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties after August, 2008 when the petitioner and answering respondents executed an agreement to sell, the petitioner remained no more tenant of, respondents. Further contends that without recording further evidence learned Rent Tribunal was not obliged to pass an eviction order, therefore, writ petition be allowed, impugned orders passed by both the courts below be set aside and case be remanded to the learned Rent Tribunal with a direction that after allowing the petitioner's application to leave to contest, framing of issues and recording of evidence of the parties matter be decided.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. The petitioner has denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and has admitted in his pleading that after execution of agreement to sell in August, 2008, the petitioner did not pay the rent of suit shop to respondents Nos.3 to 7. Record further highlights that the petitioner never produced agreement to sell before the learned courts below. The agreement to sell annexed with this petition is an unregistered document which do not create any title in favour of the petitioner. Admittedly the petitioner was a tenant under the predecessorin-interest of respondents Nos.3 to 7 and on the death of Abdul Hameed Khan the predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos. 3 to 7, the petitioner has become statutory tenant by operation of law under the answering respondents, therefore, relationship of landlord and tenant does exist between the parties and learned Rent Tribunal, Sahiwal has rightly accepted the eviction petition of respondents. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that learned Rent Tribunal was bound to record further evidence despite the fact that relationship of landlord and tenant was decided in favour of respondents Nos. 3 to 7 is misconceived as tenant cannot resist eviction petition on the strength of agreement to sell and further where the conduct of tenant in denying relationship of landlord and tenant had been contumacious, Rent Tribunal could straightway order ejectment of tenant, if relationship of landlord and tenant stood established. There are concurrent findings of two courts below against the petitioner. Both the learned courts below have passed elaborate orders which are well reasoned orders. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point any illegality in the impugned order. No interference is called for. This writ petition is without any substance. Dismissed in limine.