1. MALIK MANZOOR HUSSAIN, J.--- The instant Constitutional petition is directed against the order dated 2-2-2009 passed by the learned District Judge, Mardan, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and consequently the order dated 26-5-2007 passed by the learned trial Court whereby ejectment order against petitioner was passed has been maintained.
2. 2.Brief facts of the case are that on 21-11-2002 the respondent Shahzeb Khan filed an application for ejectment of petitioner from the disputed shop on the ground of default and personal need. The same was contested by the petitioner and initially the application was adjourned sine die, however, appeal filed by the respondent was accepted and the case was directed to be restored for trial as per law. Vide order dated1-12-2005, the ejectment order was passed by the learned Rent Controller, however, appeal filed by the petitioner was accepted vide order dated 30-5-2006 and the matter was remanded back for framing preliminary issue in respect of title. After remand, the evidence was recorded and vide order dated 26-5-2007 the Rent Controller accepted the application and passed ejectment order of the petitioner. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed through impugned order dated 2-2-2009, hence, the present constitutional petition.
3. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there was a civil suit pending regarding the suit property between the legal heirs of Al-Haj Khanzada, grandfather of the respondent/landlord and father of wife of the petitioner/tenant. The learned Rent Controller failed to appreciate the fact that till decision of title suit, the ejectment application was not maintainable. He further contended that there was no rent deed executed between the petitioner and the respondent thus in such circumstances no relationship of landlord and tenant was existed between the parties.
4. 4.Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondent argued that the suit property was originally ownership of father of the respondent, Muhammad Mukhtar and after his death the respondent was landlord of the property. Petitioner was tenant under the respondent that is why he has deposited security amount of the disputed shop with the respondent and has claimed the same.
5. He further argued that there is no case between the petitioner and Shahzeb Khan/landlord, thus there was no occasiontochallengetheownershipoftherespondentbythe petitioner.
6. Arguments heard and record perused.
7. 5.It is evident from the record that the suit shop was rented out in favour of the petitioner through rent deed Exh.P.W.2/1. It is also evident from the record that the property was purchased through registered deeds by the father and uncles of the respondent where the Plaza was built. The rent deed of the other shops situated in the plaza was also produced and exhibited in the trial Court.
8. Similarly, the registered deed in favour of respondent's father and uncles along with tax receipt of the respective shops were exhibited in the Court. Rent deeds of the other tenants were also produced and exhibited. We have also noticed that the petitioner has no direct concern with the ownership of the suit shop and also he is not thedirectlegalheirofAl- HajKhanzada.Thepetitionerhimself admitted the payment of Rs.35,000/- to the father of the respondent in respect of suit shops for which, refund order is made by the Rent Controller.
9. 6.Under West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, the landlord may not be stricto sensu the owner of the rent premises and the person collecting rent on behalf of the other owners can be termed as landlord. There is plethora of law on the issue which need not be quoted here. It is also well-settled that where there is denial of title of landlord by the tenant, tenancy automatically terminated and respondent was liable to ejectment. Reference is made to the case of Muhammad Shah Alam v. Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor (1979 SCMR 443), Muhammad Yousaf v.
10. Asghar Hussain (1980 SCMR 886), Muhammad Rafique and 6 others v. Khalid Rauf andanother (1986 SCMR 1985) and GhulamSamdani v. Abdul Hamid (1992 SCMR 1170). It is also by now well- established that once a person was inducted as a tenant under a written agreement, he could not challenge the title of the landlord without first surrendering the possession to him. Reliance can safely be placed on Province of Punjab v. Mufti Abdul Ghani (PLD 1985 SC 1) and MadrassaDarulUloomv.AdditionalDistrictJudge(PLD1992SC 401).
11. 7.In case in hand, the petitioner has been proved to be inducted as tenant in the suit shop and the plea of the petitioner that he is holding the possession on behalf of his wife, on the face of it, is mala fide to prolong his occupation for indefinite period. The petitioner failed to pay the rent to the respondent, while he was enjoying the possession of the same.
12. 8.Hallmark of Constitutional jurisdiction is to foster justice and to right a wrong. It could not be exercised in favour of those persons who come to Court with soiled hands in order to satisfy from greedy and covetous instincts. The concurrent findings recorded by the two Courts of competent jurisdiction after due consideration of material on record, was not open to question in constitutional jurisdiction. Reliance is placed onM.AmjidBhuttaandCo.v.MalikAbdulHamidTiwana (PLD 1990 Lahore 412) and Abdul Ghani v. Zahida Begum (PLD 1982 Lahore 401).
13. In the light of foregoing discussion, this petition is found to be without any merits and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.