' MALIK SHAHZAD AHMAD KHAN, J.--- This writ petition is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 1-3-2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Multan, whereby, the appeal filed by respondent No,2 was accepted and the petitioner was directed to vacate the house in question within 30 days and to pay tentative rent of Rs,1,50,000/- to respondent No,2.
2. As per brief facts of the present case, Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din (respondent No, 2) filed an ejectment petition against the petitioner before the learned Special Judge (Rent), Multan in respect of House No,X-86- A/40-41 Rajwana Road, Mohallah Ameer Abad, Multan. It was claimed by respondent No,2 that the rented property measuring 10-Marlas was purchased by his father/predecessor-ininterest, namely Muhammad Amin through registered Sale-deed No,1359 dated 21-11-1951 and, thereafter, he constructed a house on it. It was further averred in the ejectment petition that in the year 1984, the said house was rented out to the petitioner through oral agreement against the rent of Rs,600/- per month. It was also mentioned that the rate of rent was increased from time to time and lastly in the year 2005 rent of the above mentioned house was fixed at the rate of Rs,7000/- per month. It was further mentioned that the petitioner / tenant kept on paying the rent till June, 2005 and thereafter, he stopped the payment of rent. It was also claimed by the landlord respondent No,2 that he required the rented premises for his personal bona fide need and that the petitioner had damaged the rented property, so the eviction petition was filed against the petitioner on the grounds of rent default, personal bona fide need and damage to the rented premises.
3. The petitioner contested the ejectment petition and denied relationship of the landlord and tenant. The learned Special Judge (Rent), Multan, from the divergent pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:---
(I) Whether relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties? OPA
(2) Relief.
4. Respondent No,2, in order to prove his claim, produced in the witness-box, Dr. Maqbool Ahmad Ansari as AW-1, his special attorney namely Muhammad Sagheer as AW-2 and Qadir Bakhsh as AW-3, whereas, in his documentary evidence he produced affidavit of Doctor Maqbool Ahmad Ansari, Exh.A-1, affidavit of Muhammad Sagheer Exh.A-2, special power of attorney in the name of.
Sagheer Ahmad (AW2) Exh.A-3, affidavit of Qadir Bakhsh Exh.A-4, original receipt of the Excise and Taxation Department Exh.A-5, Original sale-deed Exh.A-6, documents of the Excise and Taxation Department, Multan about payment of the property tax of the house in question (PTI) Exh.A-7 to Exh.A-9, electricity bills of the disputed house Exh.A-10 to Exh.A-11, Gas bill of the said house Exh.A-12 and site plan of the house in question Mark-A.
5. On the other hand, Saeed Ahmad petitioner appeared in the witness box as RW-1. In support of his claim, he produced Mubeen Sarfraz as RW-2 and Ghulam Shabbir as RW-3, whereas, in his documentary evidence he produced his affidavit Exh.R-1, site plan Exh.R-2, affidavit of Ghulam Shabbir (RW-3) Exh.R-3, domicile of the petitioner Exh.R-3, Electricity Bill for the month of July, 2009, Exh.R-4 Electricity Bill for the month of July, 2006 Exh.R-5, Electricity Bill for the month of August, 2006 Exh.R-6, Electricity Bill for the month of August, 2000 Exh.R-7, Electricity Bill for the month of September, 2000 Exh.R-8, Electricity Bill for the month of September, 2000 Exh.R-9, Electricity Bill for the month of October, 2000 Exh.R-10, Electricity Bill for the month of October, 2000 Exh.R-I1, Electricity Bill for the month of November, 2000 Exh.R-12, Electricity Bill for 'the month of November, 2000 Exh.R- 13, Bill Wasa for the month of July, August, 2009 Exh.R-14, Telephone Bill for the month of August, 2009 Exh.R-16, Electricity. Bill for the month of April, 2000 Exh.R-17, Electricity Bill for the month of April, 2008 Exh.R-18, Telephone Bill for the month of January, 2008 Exh.R-19, receipt of sui gas Exh.R-20, receipt of sui gas Exh.R-21, Meter, card sui gas Exh.R-22, receipt sui gas Exh.R-23, original T.D. Card Exh. R-24 and attestation by Nazim, Mark-A.
6. After conclusion of the proceedings, the learned Special Judge (Rent), Multan dismissed the ejectment petition filed by respondent No,2 vide its order dated 3-10-2009. The above mentioned respondent filed an appeal against the said order of learned Special Judge (Rent), Multan which was accepted vide the impugned judgment and decree dated 1-3-2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Multan. The petitioner has challenged the above mentioned judgment and decree through the instant constitutional petition.
7. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No,2 failed to prove the relationship of the landlord and tenant between the parties, therefore, the impugned judgment and decree of learned appellate court is not sustainable in the eye of law; that intricate question about the title of immovable property cannot be decided in proceedings under the Punjab Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 and the learned appellate court instead of deciding the said question, should have directed respondent No,2, to file civil suit; that respondent No,2 did not produce any rent agreement executed between the parties; therefore, ejectment petition of the said respondent was rightly dismissed by learned Special Judge (Rent), Multan but the appeal filed by the above mentioned respondent has illegally been accepted; that documentary evidence produced by the petitioner has fully established that the petitioner was in possession of the house in question and in absence of any proof regarding the existence of relationship of the landlord and tenant between the parties, the order/judgment of eviction cannot be passed against the petitioner; that the record and documents of the Excise and Taxation Department are not conclusive evidence to establish relationship of the landlord and tenant; that the property claimed by respondent No, 2 is not determinable because the alleged registered Sale-deed No, 1359 dated 21-11-1951 (Exh.A-6) does not contain the house number, i,e, X-86-A/40-41, Rajwana Road, Mohallah Ameer Abad, Multan which is mentioned by the landlord in his ejectment petition that special attorney of respondent No,2 namely Muhammad Sagheer (AW-2) has admitted during his cross-examination that the above mentioned respondent never received the rent of the house in question, from the petitioner and in view of the said admission, the relationship of the landlord and tenant between the parties, was not established; that the impugned judgment and decree of the learned appellate court is not sustainable in the eye of law, therefore, the same may kindly be set aside and resultantly the order passed by learned Special Judge (Rent), Multan dated 3-10-2009 may kindly be restored.
5. On the other hand this petition has been opposed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No,2, on the grounds that the relationship between-the parties was fully proved in this case through oral, as well as, documentary evidence; that respondent No,2 has produced original registered Sale-deed No:1359 dated 21-11-1951 (Exh.A-6), in order to prove that he was 'owner of the rented premises and other documentary evidence produced by respondent No,2, in the shape of property Tax documents (PT1) of the Excise and Taxation Department, Multan, Exh.A-7 to Exh.A-9, Electricity Bills of the house in question Exh.A-10, Exh.A-11 and Sui Gas bill Exh.A-12 has further proved the case of respondent No, 2; that oral evidence produced by respondent No, 2 is also straightforward and confidence-inspiring; that admission of Muhammad Sagheer (AW2) that respondent No, 2 never received rent of the house in question from the petitioner, is not helpful to the case of the petitioner because it was never claimed by the said respondent that he himself used to receive rent from the tenant and the above mentioned witness has categorically stated in his affidavit Exh.AW-2 that the landlord was serving at Islamabad; therefore in his absence Malik Ahmad Baksh (father of the said witness) used to collect rent from the petitioner; that the petitioner could not prove that in which capacity he is in possession of the house in question; that there is no other claimant of the above mentioned house and in absence of any document of title, the petitioner cannot deny relationship of the landlord and tenant; that the documents produced by the petitioner in the shape of utility bills, voter list, etc. Does not create any title in favour of the petitioner; that the petitioner while appearing before the learned Special Judge (Rent), Multan has admitted in his cross-examination that he had earlier seen the documents of the property Tax (PT1) regarding the house in question wherein he had been 'recorded as a tenant under the petitioner and he has further admitted that he did not take any action for correction of the above mentioned documents, therefore, he is estopped by his words and conduct to deny relationship of the landlord and tenant between the patties; that this petition is without any substance, therefore, the same may be dismissed.
9. Arguments heard and record perused.
' The relationship of the landlord and tenant between the parties was denied by the petitioner.
Respondent No,2, in support of his claim that he was landlord of the house in question, has produced Dr. Maqbool Ansari as AW-1, Muhammad Sagheer Malik (special attorney of respondent No,2) as AW-2 and Qadir Bakhsh as AW-3. All the above mentioned witnesses have categorically deposed before the learned Special Judge (Rent), Multan that the house in question was rented out to the petitioner by Muhammad Amin, the predecessor-in-interest of respondent No,2, in the year 1984, against monthly rent of, Rs,600/-. They have also stated in unequivocal terms that the petitioner kept on paying rent of the house in, question till June, 2005 and thereafter he stopped the payment of rent and became a rent defaulter. The above mentioned witnesses were cross- examined at length but their evidence could not be shattered by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Their evidence is straightforward and confidence-inspiring. In order to establish his ownership of the house in question, respondent No, 2 has produced in his documentary evidence, the original sale deed Exh.A-6. He has also tendered in evidence the documents of the Excise and Taxation Department, Multan about the payment of property Tax (PT1) for the year 2007-08 Exh.A-7, for the year 2003-04 Exh.A-8 and for the year 2609-10 Exh.A-9. In all the above mentioned documents of the Excise and Taxation Department, Multan respondent No, 2 along with his sisters has been recorded as owner of the House No, X-86-A/40- 41, Rajwana Road, Mohallah Ameer Abad, Multan, whereas, the petitioner Saeed Ahmad has been recorded as occupier of the said house against the. Rent of Rs,800/- per month. The landlord in order to establish that the electricity and gas meters of the house in question, were in his name has also produced utility bills of the house in question as Exh.X10, Exh.A11 and Exh.Al2.
11. On the other hand, the petitioner claimed that the house in question was purchased by him from one Hafeez Ullah alias Badam. Khan (deceased) but he did not produce any title document to prove the above mentioned claim. The said Hafeez Ullah alias Badam Khan was admittedly relative of the petitioner but neither any legal heir nor any other relative of said Hafeez Ullah was produced in the witness box by the petitioner. The petitioner has also produced different utility bills and receipts of sui gas meter as Exh.R-4 to Exh.R-23 but the petitioner while appearing before the learned Rent Controller as RW-1 has frankly admitted during his cross-examination that Meter No,14391 was in the name of one Muhammad Ameer, whereas, Meter No, 14394 was in the name of one Ghulam Hussain. He has further admitted that in April, 2008 ownership of the meter of electricity has been changed in the name of respondent No,2. It is also evident from perusal of the ID Card of the petitioner (Exh.R-24) that address of the petitioner, of a different house i,e, House No,16388, Mohalla Ameerabad, Rajwana Road, Multan has been mentioned in the said document.
None of the documents produced by the petitioner is a document of title, therefore, the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner is of no help to him.
12. It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that documents of the Excise and Taxation Department about the payment of property tax (PT!) Exh.A-7 to Exh.A-9, are not sufficient to prove the relationship of the landlord and tenant between the parties. There is no cavil with the preposition that documents of the Excise and Taxation Department might not be conclusive evidence to establish the relationship of the landlord and tenant but at the same time they were not totally irrelevant as they indicate the ownership and payment of the property tax. Similar view A was taken this Court in the case of Muhammad Sharif v. Mukhtara Mai and others (2010 YLR 203).
13. The combined effect of the above mentioned oral, as well as, documentary evidence produced by respondent No,2 in the shape of sale deed Exh.A-6 documents of the Excise and Taxation Department, Multan regarding payment of property tax of the house in question, Exh.A-7 to Exh.A-9 and utility bills of the above mentioned house Exh.A-10 to Exh.A-12, is that the ownership of respondent No,2 in respect of the house in question and that the petitioner is a tenant under the said A respondent has fully been proved.
14. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that complicated question about the title of parties in respect of an immovable property was involved in the case and the same has illegally been decided in proceeding, under the Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. Although the Rent Controller is not competent to determine the question of title of the property which is the job of Civil Court, but if the tenant fails to produce any title document to support his possession over the premises in dispute, the Rent Controller or the appellate court can validely determine the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. I have fortified my views in this respect with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of 'Ahmad Ali alias All Ahmad v. Nasar ud-Din and another' (PLD 2009 Supreme Court 453) wherein at page 458 it was held as under:--- "Though the Rent Controller is not competent to determine the question of title of the property assuming the rule of a Civil Court, but if the tenant fails to produce the documentary evidence to support his title over the premises in dispute the Rent Controller can determine the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. In case the tenant could not establish possession over the property in dispute under the sale, he is not entitled to protect the same and the relationship of landlord and tenant would continue to exist as laid down in 'Mst Azeemun Nisa Begum v. Ali Muhammad' (PLD 1990 SC 382)."
15. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that House No,X-86-A/40-41, Rajwana Road, Mohallah Ameer Abad, Multan mentioned by respondent No,2 in his ejectment petition has not been mentioned in the sale-deed Exh.A-6 and as such the property owned by respondent No,2 is not determinable, therefore, the ejectment petition regarding the house in question was liable to be dismissed is misconceived: I have noted that the land measuring 10-Marlas was purchased by Muhammad Ameen, the predecessor-in-interest of respondent No,2 in the year 1951, through registered sale-deed Exh.A-6. It is evident from perusal of the said document that there was no construction on the plot when the same was purchased. Later on, when the said property became part of a residential area and a house was constructed on it, the same was given a specific number i,e, X-86-A/40-41, in the documents of Excise and Taxation Department, (Exh.A-7 to Exh.A- 9). The petitioner cannot take advantage of the position to frustrate the eviction proceedings on the pretext that the property owned by the petitioner is not determinable, particularly when he himself could not prove his title and there is no other claimant of the ownership of the said property. A similar issue came under discussion of IC the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Syed Abdul Ghafoor Shah v. Syed Luqman and others (2009 SCM R 45). The relevant part of the said judgment at page 50 is reproduced hereunder:- "Be that as it may, the petitioner cannot take advantage of the position and frustrate the eviction proceedings on the pretext that there is discrepancy regarding Municipal number of the shop in question, because it is quite clear that the property in question is the same property which was let to him on rent by Syed Abdul Qayyum, co-owner of the property particularly when none else has claimed ownership/proprietary rights over the same".
16. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that Muhammad Sagheer (AW-2) has admitted during his cross-examination that respondent No,2 never received rent from the petitioner, therefore, relationship of the landlord and tenant was not established in this case. The said contention of the learned counsel has no force because it was never the case of afore- mentioned respondent that he himself used to collect the rent from the petitioner. Respondent No,2 in Para No,2 of his eviction petition has categorically mentioned that he was serving at Islamabad therefore, he used to collect rent from the petitioner through his brother-in-law, namely Malik Ahmad Baksh. Even otherwise the above mentioned admission of Muhammad Saeed AW-2 cannot be read in isolation to his remaining evidence. The said witness has specifically stated in his affidavit in evidence Exh.A-2, as well as, during his cross-examination that respondent No,2 was serving at Islamabad and he used to collect rent through Malik Ahmad Bukhsh. So combined effect of the reading of whole statement of the above mentioned witness, clearly was that respondent No,2 had been receiving the rent from the petitioner through the above mentioned Malik Ahmad Bukhsh and there exists a relationship of the landlord and tenant, between the parties. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Haji Feroze Khan and another v. Ameer Hussain through L.
Rs and others' (2004 SCM R 1719) has held that raising inferences from the part of the statement of a witness in isolation to the evidence as a whole, was not proper exercise of discretion. The relevant part of the said judgment at page 1722 reads as follows:--- "The two courts below raised inferences from the part of the statement of the respondent/plaintiff that he came to know about the sale on 10-10-1991 in isolation which was not proper exercise of discretion as to raising of inferences. The learned Judge of the High Court has rightly held that from the evidence if read as a whole, it was made out that the said sentence had either not been correctly recorded in the statement of the plaintiff or there was mistake in mentioning the date as 10-10-1991. We have also gone, through the evidence and find that it was proved through the evidence of the witnesses who were mentioned in the statement of the plaintiff that the plaintiff came to know of the sale on 18-10-1991, three witnesses were sent as Jirga to the petitioners on the same date and notice was issued on the following day i,e, 19-10-1991. The inferences drawn by the two courts below were, therefore, rightly interfered with, the same having been found to have been based on consideration of the evidence as a whole, which are in accordance with law and do not suffer from any legal infirmity."
' Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of 'Abdul Qayum through Legal Heirs versus Mushke-Alam and another' (2001SCMR 798).
17. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that no rent agreement between the parties has been produced by respondent No,2, therefore, the relationship of the landlord and tenant could not be established in this case, has no force. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard cannot prevail for the simple reason that tenancy may not be necessarily through a written document and the same might be oral. A reference in this context may be made to the case of 'Shajar Islam v. Muhammad Siddique and 2 others' (PLD 2007 SC 45) wherein at page 47 it was held as under:- "This is settled proposition of law that a landlord may not be essentially an owner of the property and ownership may not always be a determining factor to establish the relationship of the land lord and tenant between the parties. However, in the normal circumstances in absence of any evidence to the contrary, the owner of the property by virtue of his title is presumed to be the landlord and the person in possession of the premises is considered as tenant under the law and the tenancy may not be necessarily created by a written instrument in express terms rather may also be oral and implied."
' The above mentioned view was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Ahmad Ali alias Ali Ahmad versus Nasar-ud-Din and another' (PLD 2009 Supreme Court 453).
18. In light of the above discussion, there is no force in the present petition, thus, the same is hereby dismissed.