' SYED MUHAMMAD KAZIM RAZA SHAMSI, J.---This constitutional petition is directed against an order dated 6-7-2011 passel by Muhammad Qasim the learned Additional District Judge Lahore whereby he maintained the order dated 2-12-2009 passed by Arif Mehmood Khan learned Special Judge Rent whereby an application filed by the petitioner under section 12(2), C.P.C. Was dismissed.
2. Facts of the case briefly stated are that Sheikh Razi-ud-Din and Sheikh Khalid Moeen-ud-Din being Matwali of Khan Bahadar Sheikh Muhammad Naqi. Wqaf etc. Filed an ejectment petition under section 15 of Punjab Rented Premises Ordinance, 2007 against the one Abdul Hameed Khan in respect of Shop No, 81 Shahra-e-Quaid-e-Azam Lahore, alleging that property in dispute was rented out to the respondent at monthly rent of Rs, 5155 who paid the rent till March, 2007, thereafter from April, 2007, he defaulted in the payment of rent. It was also alleged that without written permission of the petitioner the shop was subletted by the respondent who had also made structural changes in the rented premises without prior permission.
3. The respondent filed an application seeking leave to contest the ejectment petition on the ground that he had vacated the premises on 2-4-2007 and handed over the possession to one Mehmood Riaz with the consent of the petitioner, as such; he denied the existence of relationship of land-lord and the tenant between the parties.
4. The learned trial court vide order dated 23-9-2008 dismissed the leave application on the ground that the signatures on the lease documents allegedly executed by the landlord in favour of one Mehmood Riaz differ than the one available on the pleadings of the case and that the documents were forged and fabricated to show the possession of Mehmood Riaz over the rented premises in order to avoid the liability of arrear of rent. Abdul Hameed did not assail the findings of the learned Rent Controller, in any further proceedings.
5. Subsequently on 6-1-2009 Mehmood Riaz filed an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Before the learned Rent Controller,- alleging that the landlord of the property had executed a lease deed in his favour on 17-4-2007 but he was not impleaded as a 'party in the ejectment petition against Abdul Hameed, as such, the order of the ejectment was obtained at his back. The respondent- landlord contested the petition alleging that the document produced by the petitioner was never executed by him, as such, are fabricated and forged one.
6. The learned Rent Controller, after considering the submission of the parties dismissed the application holding that the petitioner Mehmood Riaz had fabricated the documents with the connivance of previous tenant Abdul Hameed.
7. The order so passed on the application was assailed in a revision petition before the learned Additional District Judge Lahore, who concurred with the findings of the learned Rent Controller, and dismissed the revision petition.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that it was incumbent upon the courts below while deciding the application under section 12(2), C. P. C. To frame issues and decide the application after recording the evidence of the parties as the allegation of fraud has been alleged therein. He further submitted that learned courts without having the help of any Handwriting Expert themselves reached at a conclusion that the signatures of the respondent over the disputed document do not match with the pleadings of the parties, as such, the findings are incorrect. The learned counsel for respondent cited the cases of Muhammad Akram Malik v. Dr. Ghulam Rabbani and others (PLD 2006 SC 773), Zahida Bibi and 4 others v. Nayyar Sultana and 15 others (PLD 2009 Lahore 168), and Lahore Development Authority v. Arif Manzoor Qureshi and others (2006 SCMR 1530).
9. The learned counsel for respondent while controverting the contention, of counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondent had taken a ground of subletting in the ejectment petition asserting that property was given by Abdul Hameed without the permission of the respondent, as such, there was no need to implead the petitioner as a party in the ejectment petition; that the Rent acts under special law which do not provide any special procedure for holding any inquiry in a particular manner, as such, the Tribunal has vast jurisdiction to adopt any procedure for reaching at a just conclusion and in this manner the courts' while examining itself the signatures of the respondent on the documents relied upon by the petitioner had justifiably, concluded that the signatures were not in the hand-writing of the respondent which findings being unexceptionable are liable to be maintained. He further submitted that an ejectment order was passed against Abdul Hameed, who did not challenge his eviction before any higher forum, as such, the said order has attained finality and cannot be assailed through any subsequent proceedings. He also submitted that in the instant case there was no need to frame any issue or to record evidence of any party as the document itself speaks about forgery committed by the petitioner. The learned counsel has cited the case of Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Cabinet Division and another v. Dr. M. Akbar Rajput (2011 SCMR 1298), Asifa Khanum through L.Rs v. Sheikh Abdul Ghafoor through L.Rs, (2009 CLC 1089), Khadim Mohy-ud-Din and Mrs. S. Mahmud v. Ch. Rehmat Ali Nagra and Mst. Aziz Begum (PLD 1965 SC 459), Taj Muhammad and others v. Ali Hassan Wanghi and others (1987 SCMR 565), Pakistan State Oil Company Limited v. Sikandar A. Karim and others (2005 CLC 3), Minochar N. Kharas represented by Legal Heirs v. Ali Hassan Manghi and 6 others (1986 CLC 1378), Messrs Noorrani Travels, Karachi v. Muhammad Hanif and others (2008 SCMR 1395) and Muhammad Shafi and 13 others v. Muhammad Farooq and 3 others (1989 CLC 937).
10. The parties have been heard at length. The cases cited at the bar have been considered.
11. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the courts below while deciding the application in hand should frame issues and record the evidence as the application contained allegation of fraud seems to be very weak arguments for the reason that mere mentioning the word fraud in an application is not sufficient to believe that some fraud was actually committed and order impugned was obtained by misrepresentation. Order VI Rule 4, C.P.C. Requires that particular of fraud mandatorily be specified in application. In the instant case these particulars are not available. It is crystal clear from the documents available on the record that the lease deed was never executed by the respondent in favour of the petitioner. Abdul Harneed while relying upon a 'chit' had mentioned that he had abandoned the possession of premises on 2-4-2007 and the same was handed over to Mehmood Riaz on the same date. It is noticed that on that date the lease deed was not in field, which was written on 17-4-2007 about 15 days after the alleged handing over of the possession of the petitioner. Further it is noted that Abdul Hameed had admittedly been paying the rent @ Rs,5155 to the landlord but in the lease agreement the rate of rent is mentioned @ Rs,2577 per month, with the increase from July, 2007 to Rs,3222. It is quite impossible that the landlord when renting out his property to subsequent tenant would reduce the rate of rent. It is the matter of common knowledge that the properties are rented out always on the higher rent than the rent paid by the earlier tenant. This fact alone is sufficient to disbelieve the documents relied upon by the petitioner and it hardly needs any evidence to prove that the document was executed by the respondent on 17-4-2007.
12. Furthermore the lawyer of Abdul Hameed, the previous tenant had filed petition seeking leave to contest the ejectment petition on behalf of Abdul Hameed had filed application under section 12(2), C.P.C. On behalf of Mehmood Riaz when he himself in PLA of Abdul Hameed in preliminary objection No, C and D had specifically written that the property in dispute was handed over by Abdul Hameed to Mehmood Riaz. This fact shows the connivance of Abdul Hameed and Mehmood Riaz to defraud the landlord of the property. It was wrongly and falsely noted by the same counsel in the subsequent petition of Mehmood Riaz filed under section 12(2), C.P.C. That Mehmood Riaz came to know about the ejectment order two days prior to the institution of the application. Further it is on the record that the petitioner for the first time sent the rent through money orders to the landlord on 28-8-2008 almost 4 months of his alleged lease agreement. He further deposited the rent of the property after about one year that too after passing of ejectment order against 'Abdul Hameed. This is clear collusiveness, which apparently existed between Mehmood Riaz and Abdul Hameed who wanted to avoid the liability of arrear of rent stood at his credit. Thus it is evident that it was not necessary in the circumstances and facts of the case for the courts below to frame issues and to record the evidence thereon as all these facts are sufficient to establish that Abdul Hameed has sub-letted the property in dispute to Mehmood Riaz without the permission of landlord and now in the garb of this application he wanted to play with the provisions of law just to avoid payment of arrears of rent. In these circumstances, the courts below did not commit any illegality in dismissing the application of the petitioner.
13. For the foregoing reasons this petition having no merits is dismissed with costs of Rs,10,000.