ALI BAQAR NAJAFI, J. -- Through this appeal, the appellants challenge the order dated 21.06.2012 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Rawalpindi Cantonment whereby the appellants were ordered to be ejected from. The suit property and were directed to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property to the respondents within thirty days.
2. The brief facts giving rise to filing of this F.A.O. Are that the respondents filed a petition for ejectment of the appellants before the Court of Additional Rent Controller, Rawalpindi Cantonment from the house bearing No. CB-2072 situated at Street No. 9-A, Ghazi Abad Rawalpindi Cantt; having been devolved upon them after the death of their father on 16.11.2007; it was also alleged that through oral agreement between the predecessors-in-interest of the parties the house in question was rented out to the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants in March 2007 through one Malik Muhammad Aslam who purchased the said house through registered sale-deed dated 5.03.2007 for monthly rent of Rs. 4000/- per month. The ejectment petition was filed on the ground of default in the payment of rent from September, 2007 to June, 2008. The appellants filed a written statement by putting up their defence that on 21.06.2005 an agreement was executed between Muhammad Kamran son of Muhammad sulman and Abdul Munaf son of Amir Khan for purchasing of property in question and an amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- was paid to the said Kamran as earnest money whereafter the possession of the house was handed over to Abdul Munaf appellant on 21.06.2005. However, Muhammad Aslam the predecessor-in- interest of the respondents in league with Muhammad Kamran, etc. Got sale- deed registered in his favour which prompted the appellants to i.e a suit for specific performance of agreement dated 21.06.2005 and asked them to execute the registered sale-deed in favour of Muhammad Aslam deceased pending in the Civil Court. The learned Rent Controller framed only one issue on the question of relationship of landlord and tenant. The parties adduced their respective evidence whereafter on 21.06.2012 the ejectment petition was accepted and the appellants were directed to hand over the peaceful possession of the house in question to the respondents within thirty days. Hence this appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the lower Court has erred in law while accepting the ejectment petition; that the relationship of landlord and tenant does not exist between the parties which fact was proved on the basis of evidence; that the original registered sale-deed of the respondent was not exhibited and only a photo-copy thereof was produced which is inadmissible; that during the pendency of the suit filed by the appellants the ejectment order could not have possibly been passed; that oral tenancy was not proved either; that the agreement proceedings Ex.R-9 and civil plaint Ex.R-7 were not properly attended to while passing the impugned order. Places reliance on Syed Aijaz Hussain v. Azimullah (1984 CLC 2908 (Karachi)), Major (R.) Zaka Uddin Khan and others v. S.M. Abdul Fetouh through LRs (2008 YLR 1774 (Karachi)), Abdul Hameed v. Muhammad Iqbal and another (2002 YLR 2772 (Lahore)), Rehmatullah v. Ali Muhammad and another (1983 S.C.M.R. 1064), Muhammad Nadeem v. Abdul Wahid and others (1999 M LD 1342 (Lahore)) to argue that in absence of any receipt, the ejectment cannot be ordered.
4. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no dispute over the description of property; that PW-1 Muhammad Kamran appeared and made a statement in favour of the respondents. He places reliance on Shahid Mehboob v. Muhammad Ismail (2008 CLC 87 (Karachi)); Ashfaq v. Mst. Begum Bibi alias Bego Bibi and another (1984 CLC 2587 (Karachi)), Haji Jurrima Khan v. Haji Zarin Khan (PLD 1999 Supreme Court 1101), Iqbal and 6 others v. Mst. Rabia Bibi and another (PLD 1991 Supreme Court 242) and Mst. Anwari Begum v. Mst. Mumtaz Begum (1986 M LD 1169 (Karachi)) to argue that the findings of the Tribunal in respect of the relationship between the parties is correct and that the appeal be dismissed.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record.
4. Admittedly, the alleged agreement to sell of the appellants with one Muhammad Kamran is yet to be executed as the suit for specific performance thereof is pending adjudication. The relationship of landlord and tenant is fully established. Even Muhammad Kamran while appearing as PW-1 denied the existence of any such agreement to sell. Suffice it to say that unless determined by the Civil Court the respondents are well within their right to have the possession and use the premises, the way they like. It was rightly held by the Rent Controller that Faisal Ameer Khan while appearing as RW-1 admitted not to have possessed any registered sale-deed pertaining to House No. CB-2072-73 and unless the appellants establish their status they remain tenants t of the respondents. I am fortified by the esteemed Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as Haji Jumma Khan v. Haji Zarin Khan (PLD 1999 Supreme Court 1101) wherein it is laid down that till the time the tenants are able to establish their claim, the landlords will remain the owners and landlords of the premises and the relationship between the parties till such time will be regulated by the terms of agreement as the tenant cannot legitimately resist the maintainability of the ejectment proceedings. Reference can easily be made to the case Iqbal and 6 others v. Mst.
Rabia Bibi and another (PLD 1991 Supreme Court 242) mentioned supra wherein it has been held that pendency of civil suit for specific performance of agreement would also be not a ground to avoid eviction of tenant by Rent Controller. Even otherwise the law relating to the rent matters does not require the landlord to establish his title of ownership in order to proceed with the ejectment