' MUHAMMAD TARIQ ABBASI, J. --- By way of this writ petition, the judgment dated 8.7.2011, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi has been called in question. Through the said judgment, an appeal preferred by respondent No, 1, challenging the order dated 21.1.2011 passed by the learned Special Judge (Rent), Rawalpindi has been accepted and by setting aside the said order, the ejectment petition, preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed.
2. The facts are that the petitioner moved a petition under Scent 15 of the Punjab Rented Premises Ordinance, 2007, against the respondent No, 1, whereby eviction of the respondent No, 1 from first floor of the house No, NE-297/C-2, situated at Tipu Road, Jinnah Colony, Rawalpindi was sought on the grounds of default in payment of the rent as well as expiry of the period of tenancy.
3. The respondent No, 1 filed a petition to contest, on the grounds that she was not tenant under the present petitioner, but of one Muhammad Ishaq deceased. The said petition of respondent No, 1 was allowed and accordingly the subsequent proceedings were carried on, during which the present petitioner, by filing affidavit as Ex.P.1 had made his statement as PW-1, whereas Muhammad Tasleem Khan and Karamat Hussain by way of affidavits (Ex.P.2 and Ex.P3) had made the statements as PW-2 and PW-3 respectively. From the other side, the respondent No, 1 had made the statement as RW-1 and also got examined Taimoor Ijaz Hassan and Malik Muhammad Ali as RW-2 and RW-3 respectively.
4. On completion of the proceedings, the learned Special Judge (Rent), Rawalpindi had passed the order dated 21.1.2011, whereby while holding the relationship between the parties as landlord and tenant, the ejectment petition was accepted, with a direction to the respondent No, 1 to vacate the rented premises within 45 days and also make the payment of arrear of the rent from April, 2008 onward @ Rs, 3500/- per month.
5. The respondent No, 1 had challenged the above-mentioned order dated 21.1.2011 through an appeal, which for hearing was entrusted to the learned Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi, from where the judgment dated 8.7.2011 was pronounced, whereby the appeal was accepted, the order of the learned Special Judge (Rent), Rawalpindi was set aside and the ejectment petition was dismissed with cost.
6. Consequently, the writ petition in hand has been preferred, with the contention' and the grounds that the learned Special Judge (Rent), Rawalpindi had rightly evaluated the material available on the record and passed the order dated 21.1.2011, but the learned Appellate Court had erred in passing the impugned judgment dated 8.7.2011, without considering the attending facts and circumstances and the law on the subject.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has advanced his arguments on the above-mentioned lines, whereas the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No, 1 has vehemently opposed the writ petition.
8. Arguments of both the sides have been heard and the record has been perused.
9. As stated above, the ejectment petition filed by the petitioner was denied by the respondent No, 1, to the effect that she was not tenant of the petitioner, therefore, herein below, it will be evaluated and adjudged if on the basis of the material available on the record, the order of the learned Special Judge (Rent), Rawalpindi was justified or the impugned judgment was the demand of the situation.
10. The record shows that during the proceedings, the petitioner had brought on the record that the house No, NE-2971C-2, in first floor of which the respondent No, 1 was residing as a tenant was purchased by him through registered sale-deed No, 6842, dated 31.8.2005; registered with Sub- Registrar; Rawalpindi. The said purchase by the petitioner was from Masoom Zaman son of Ch. Muhammad Zaman, through his attorney namely Muhammad lshaq, who was being claimed by the respondent No, 1 to be her landlord. In this way, the present petitioner had become owner of the house in question in the year 2005. As per the dictum laid down in the case titled "Bahauddin Bootwala v. Muhammad Afzal" (2000 YLR 2716), through purchase of the house in question, the present petitioner had stopped into the shoes of its previous owner. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:--- "---Relationship of landlord and tenant was denied by tenant on the ground that he was inducted as a tenant by the previous owner---Rent Controller accepting the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties allowed the ejectment application---Validity-Previous owner, after purchase of the property, transferred the same to the present landlord by way of gift, therefore, the present landlord had stepped into the shoes of the previous owner---In absence of an agreement to the contrary, relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties---Rent Controller had rightly exercised jurisdiction."
11. The record shows that the respondent No, 1 had contended that no notice was ever issued to her, by the present petitioner, regarding purchase of the house in question by him, hence she was unaware of the ownership of the petitioner and as such not tenant under him. Nothing has been brought on the record that after purchase of the house, till filing of the ejectment petition, the petitioner had issued any notice to the respondent No, 1, towards purchase of the house by him, but it could not be ignored that in the above-mentioned eventuality, filing of the ejectment petition, itself was a notice to the respondent No,
1. In this regard, reliance may be placed on the cases titled "Sher Jang v. District Judge, Islamabad and 04 others" (PLJ 2005 SC 7), "Pakistan National Shipping Corporation v. Messrs General Service Corporation" (1992 SCM R 871) and "Ashiq Hussain v. Niaz Muhammad" (2000 CLC 376).
12. Furthermore Masoom Zaman, vendor of the house in question, in favour of the petitioner, who is residing abroad in England, has sent a declaration/affidavit duly attested by the Consulate of Pakistan at Bradford, whereby sale of the house in question by him to the present petitioner, through his uncle Muhammad !Shag as attorney, vide the above-mentioned registered sale-deed, has been admitted and that the tenants residing in the house in question were accordingly informed by the petitioner and his uncle Muhammad Ishaq, about sale of the house in favour of the petitioner and change of ownership.
13. On one hand, the purchase of the house in question by the petitioner and change of ownership has been confirmed in the above-mentioned terms, whereas on the other hand, the respondent No, 1 has denied the petitioner to be her landlord, but in the light of the above-mentioned documents, she is precluded to do so. It has been brought on the record that the respondent No, 1 has not paid the rent of the property in question, to anyone since October, 2010, hence as per dictum laid down by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case titled "Ahmad All alias All Ahmad v. Nasar-ud-Din and another" (PLJ 2010 SC 910), the respondent No, 1 is liable to be ejected straightaway. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:- "Application of landlord for ejectment of tenant having been based on default, and the required relationship of landlord and tenant having been denied by the tenant, he was liable to be ejected straightaway when the required relationship has been proved in affirmative."
' Similar view has been rendered by the apex Court in the case titled "Buzang Jamil and another v.
Haji Abdul Bari and others" (PLD 2003 Supreme Court 477).
14. As a result of the above discussion, the impugned judgment dated 8.7.2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi could not be termed to be justified. Hence while accepting the instant writ petition, the said judgment is set aside and reversed. Meaning thereby that the appeal filed by the respondent No, 1 is dismissed and the order dated 21.1.2011 of the learned Special Judge (Rent), Rawalpindi is restored.