' CH. MUHAMMAD YOUNIS, J.---Through this constitutional petition, the impugned judgment dated 1- 2-2012 passed by Malik Munir Ahmed Joyia, learned Addl. District Judge Rawalpindi has been assailed whereby he reversed the findings of the learned Special Judge (Rent) and directed the petitioner to vacate the disputed premises Shop No.DG-9, G-286, Five Brothers Plaza, China Market, College Road, Rawalpindi within two months.
2. Briefly stated the facts relevant for the disposal of the instant petition are that the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed an ejectment petition against the petitioner on the grounds that they had purchased the disputed property through registered sale deed dated 29-6-2009 and the petitioner became their tenant by operation of law. The petitioner was informed about the said sale-deed and he agreed to pay the rent @ Rs.40,000 per month but the petitioner failed to pay rent from July, 2009 onward and committed wilful default in payment of rent. In spite of repeated demands the arrears of rent were not paid. A legal notice was also issued to the petitioner but in vain. So, the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed an ejectment petition against the petitioner. The petitioner filed an application for leave to defend which was allowed and the petitioner resisted the ejectment petition on the grounds that the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between him and the respondents Nos. 1 and 2. He rather took the plea that he had entered into an agreement to sell with the attorney of the owners of the property and was in possession of the said premises as owner having paid the entire amount of consideration and that a civil suit for specific performance was also pending before the court of competent jurisdiction.
3. The learned Special Judge (Rent) framed the following issue out of the pleadings of the parties:- -
(1) Whether there exists relationship of landlord and tenant' between the parties? OPA
(2) Relief.
' The learned Special Judge (Rent) dismissed the ejectment petition vide order dated 1-3-2011. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed an appeal which was accepted by Malik Munir Ahmed Joiya, learned Addl. District Judge Rawalpindi and eviction of the petitioner was ordered.
4. The petitioner has assailed the judgment of the learned Addl District Judge dated 1-2-2012 on the grounds that it is against law and facts; that the appellate court did not consider the fact that no relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties and that through agreement to sell dated 29-6-2009 a huge amount has been paid as sale consideration by the petitioner to the respondents No.1 and 2 and he was in possession of the said premises as owner. The learned counsel contends that a civil suit for specific performance of contract was also pending in the civil court but all these facts were not taken into consideration by the learned appellate court. He goes on to submit that the impugned judgment is based on mis-reading and non-reading of evidence.
Moreover, the petitioner was tenant of Faheem Siddiqui who executed agreement to sell in favour of the petitioner as attorney of the owner so he prayed for setting aside of the impugned judgment dated 1-2-2012. The learned counsel referred to 1988 CLC 1520 (Lahore), 1991 SCMR 850, 1999 MLD 1342 (Lahore), PLD 2006 Lahore 643 and 2009 SCMR 1091 in support of his arguments.
5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents placed on the record. I have also gone through the impugned judgment passed by the learned Addl: District Judge.
6. The learned Addl. District Judge observed that the petitioner was occupying the premises as a tenant and on the basis of alleged agreement to sell, which is yet to be proved, he could not claim himself to be owner and his status over the disputed property will remain as tenant. Mere agreement to sell does not create any title. The facts and circumstances of the case-law referred to above by the learned counsel for the petitioner are distinguishable from those of the present case. I would like to refer to PLD 1991 SC 242, PLD 2009 SC 45, 2009 SCMR 1396, 2010 YLR 114 (Lahore) and 2010 MLD 45. It was held in PLD 1991 SC 242 (Iqbal and 6 others v. Mst. Rabia Bibi and another) as under:- "Where the tenant takes the plea of agreement to sell in respect of demised premises the ejectment application could not be stayed or stalled on a plea that tenant in possession was holding agreement to sell. 'Pendency of suit for specific performance of agreement would also be no ground to avoid eviction of tenant by Rent Controller'. Where such plea raised in defence by tenant was not effective, next order to be passed would be one for eviction".
' In PLD 2009 SC 45 (Mst. Seema Begum versus Muhammad Ishaq and others) it was held that:-- "Genuineness or otherwise of alleged agreement and its consequential effect would be independently determined by the Civil Court. It is settled law that till the time tenant was able to establish his claim for "specific performance" on the basis of alleged sale agreement, the landlord would continue to enjoy the status of being owner or landlord of the premises and the relationship between the parties till such time would be regulated by the terms of tenancy and the tenant cannot legitimately resist the maintainability of ejectment proceeding pending against him on the ground of sale agreement. This argument is strengthened by the dictum laid down in the cases of Haji Jumma Khan v. Haji Zarin Khan (PLD 1999 SC 1101), Iqbal and 6 others v. Mst. Rabia Bibi and another (PLD 1991 SC 242), Waheed Ullah v. Rehana Nasim (2004 SCMR 1568) and Muhammad Nazir v. Saeed Subhani (2002 SCMR 1540). So in the circumstances of the case, we find that claim of the respondent is baseless. It is also settled proposition of law that once a person acknowledges himself to be a tenant of a landlord, the principle of estoppel as enunciated in Article 115 of Qanun- e-Shahadat Order would come into play, debarring such tenant to deny the title of his landlord".
7. In the light of the case-law referred to above, the status of the petitioner in the demised property is that of a tenant. On the basis of agreement to sell he cannot claim to be owner of the property.
He will continue to be a tenant unless not only the decree for specific performance is passed but in execution thereof the sale-deed is also registered in his favour.
8. Admittedly, the demised premises was purchased by respondents Nos. 2 and 3 through registered sale-deed and at that time the petitioner was tenant in the said property. By operation of law, he became the tenant of the said respondents. A legal notice about the change of ownership was also sent to the petitioner. So relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties as observed by the learned Addl. District Judge. Since the relationship was denied by the petitioner, so it is proved that he failed to pay/tender the rent to the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and committed wilful default in payment of rent.
9. In the light of the above discussion and the case-law referred to above, the impugned judgment suffers from no legal infirmity, illegality, perversity and warrants no interference by this Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. So, the writ petition is hereby dismissed in-limine.