' SYED KAZIM RAZA SHAMSI, J.---This constitutional petition is directed against an order dated 26-6- 2009 passed by Mr. Muhammad Mohsin Raza Khan, Additional District Judge, Sargodha, whereby the application seeking ejectment filed by respondent No,2 was accepted.
2. Facts leading to the instant petition briefly stated are that Muhammad Younis/respondent No,2 sought eviction of Muhammad Afzal, the present petitioner, from the house measuring 4. Marlas situated at Azhar Park Sargodha, on the ground of default in the payment of rent. The petition was contested by the tenant denying the relationship of landlord and the tenant whereupon a major issue of the relationship was framed by the learned Rent Controller. After examining the oral as well as documentary evidence of the parties the learned Rent Controller reached at the conclusion that the relationship of landlord and the tenant does not exist between the parties, consequently dismissed the petition but the order of the learned Rent Controller was set aside by the learned First Appellate Court vide the impugned order dated 26-6-2009 and accepted the ejectment petition.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned First Appellate Court has ignored the facts that the petitioner is the owner of the property in dispute and is not a tenant, as such, the impugned order suffers from material illegality. In this behalf the learned counsel has placed reliance upon 1984 CLC 2908, 1991 SCM R 1376 and 2006 CLC 1886. Learned counsel for the respondents in rebuttal states that the petitioner did not establish his ownership of demised premises, therefore, the learned First Appellate Court had rightly accepted the ejectment petition.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and examined the case-law cited at the bar. It is settled law that the landlord has to discharge the burden of proof initially by leading evidence about his relationship where after the tenant is bound to rebut the such evidence placed on the record. In the instant case respondent No,2 through Exh.P-1 as well as through statement of AW-2 established that he was the owner of the house in dispute and had given A on rent the said house to the present petitioner on monthly rent. The petitioner had also claimed the title of the disputed property by stating that he had purchased the said house through an agreement from one Iftikhar Ahmad but neither he placed on file any such agreement nor he had produced the said Iftikhar Ahmad in the witness box to prove his stance. Rather in the cross- examination upon the AW-2 made on behalf of the petitioner it is established that the petitioner is a tenant under respondent No,2 because AW-2 in his cross-examination candidly stated that the petitioner approached him for having on rent the house of respondent No,2 upon which the house was rented out to the present petitioner. The petitioner's witnesses RW-3 had shown his ignorance in his cross examination that the petitioner had taken the house in dispute on rent from the respondent No,2. The learned First Appellate Court has properly appreciated these facts available in the evidence of the parties while reaching at the conclusion that there exist relationship between the parties of landlord and the tenant. Even otherwise it is for the tenant to establish his status in the demise premises by leading convincing and cogent evidence, which has not been tendered by the petitioner in the instant case. The findings recorded by the. Learned First appellate Court being unexceptionable are liable to be maintained.
5. For what has been discussed above, this petition fails and is dismissed.