' ATIR MAHMOOD, J. --- Brief facts of the case are that respondents No, 3 to 13 Faiz-ul-Hassan etc. Filed an ejectment petition against petitioners Haji Abdul Majeed etc. And respondents No, 14 to 20 Mubarak All etc. The petitioners and respondent No, 14 Mubarak Ali filed petition for leave to contest.
The ejectment petition to the extent of respondent No, 15 namely Muhammad Amer was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 07.12.2012 whereas ex parte proceedings were initiated against respondents No, 16 to 20. After hearing arguments of learned counsel for the parties, the learned Rent Controller, Shakar Garh dismissed petition for leave to contest filed by the petitioners and respondent No, 14 and accepted ejectment petition vide judgment and decree dated 18.01.2013. The petitioners and respondent No, 14 feeling aggrieved filed appeal against judgment and decree of learned Rent Controller, however, respondent No, 14 withdrew appeal to his extent. The learned lower Appellate Court dismissed appeal of the petitioners vide judgment and decree dated 11.06.2013, hence this writ petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that the respondents-ejectment petitioners have failed to establish relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties; that learned Courts below have failed to take into consideration the fact that the lease agreements appended with the ejectment petition were fake as the alleged agreements were written in 1988 whereas the shops were constructed after 07.02.1989 when the site plan was sanctioned by the Municipal Committee Shakar Garh; that the respondents have failed to produce any document showing their ownership over the property; that the inheritance mutation is sanctioned after death of a person and not prior to death of a person but the respondents claim themselves on the basis of inheritance mutation No, 8524, dated 29.08.2009 whereas their predecessor from whom the property allegedly devolved upon them died on 29.09.2009, therefore, the alleged mutation was fake and fictitious but this fact was altogether ignored by learned Courts below; that the alleged mutation did not show any area of property, khasra number or other particulars of property rather the khata mentioned in the mutation is regarding agricultural land; that the respondents have asserted that the disputed property was allotted to their predecessor Abdul Ghafoor on 16.07.1954 whereas no such scheme was introduced at that time, therefore, this writ petition be allowed, the impugned judgments and decrees be set aside and ejectment petition filed by respondents No, 3 to 13 be dismissed. He has relied upon the judgments cited as Muhammad Yousaf through Special Attorney v. Mst. Manawar Begum and 7 others (2010 M LD 147), Hafiz Muhammad lkram v.
Muhammad Mushtaq (PLD. 1978 Lahore 996), Muhammad lrshad v. Additional District Judge, Mu/tan and 8 others (2009 YLR 2379 (Lahore), Mst. Parveen Bibi v. Shahan Masih and 2 others (2007 CLC 1106 (Lahore) and Muhammad Lehrasab Khan v. Mst. Aqeel-un-Nisa and 5 others (2001 SCM R 338).
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents have vehemently opposed this writ petition and fully supported the impugned judgments and decrees.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. The only question which is to be answered by this Court is as to whether the learned Trial Court as well as the learned lower Appellate Court were justified to dismiss the application for leave to contest filed by the petitioners and ejectment order against the petitioners.
6. Perusal of record reflects that the respondents claiming themselves to be the owner of the disputed property filed the ejectment petition against the present petitioners and others. While filing leave to contest, the present petitioners claimed that they were tenants of one Muhammad Younas son of Shah Muhammad who is the owner of the property in their possession. The respondents contested this application for leave to contest by filing written reply asserting their ownership over the property through inheritance. The respondents while filing the ejectment petition appended therewith affidavits of the witnesses, rent agreement executed with different tenants, sanctioned site plans of the property, copy of record-of-rights regarding disputed property in favour of Abdul Ghafoor, predecessorin-interest of the respondents alongwith copy of assessm ent from a register of Excise and Taxation Department in the form of PT.
1. The said PT.1 clearly shows the name and parentage of Abdul Ghafoor (predecessor of the present respondents) and also shows names of the persons in occupation of the disputed property (shops). All the documents submitted clearly suggest that Abdul Ghafoor was the owner of the property in dispute. Even in the application for leave to contest, the petitioners have not denied that the property in dispute was allotted to said Abdul Ghafoor rather it has been stated that the allotment was forged and fictitious to the extent of sanctioned site plan and ignorance was shown.
The stance taken by the petitioners, that the property in question belongs to one Muhammad Younas is not supported by any evidence. Mere assertion of the petitioners that they are tenants under an oral tenancy with Muhammad Younas, in my view, is a contumacious denial of the tenancy under the respondents. It has been pointed out by learned counsel for the respondents during the course of arguments that a suit for declaration has been filed by Muhammad Younas against the respondents-ejectment petitioners but even in that suit, Muhammad Younas has not asserted that he had handed over possession of the property to the present petitioners.
7. Another argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the alleged mutation of inheritance was attested on 29.8.2009 whereas according to the death certificate, produced before this Court, that said Abdul Ghafoor died on 29.9.2009, is also of a little importance for the adjudication of the present case for two reasons. Firstly, that the authenticity of death certificate is not to be adjudged by this Court at this stage and secondly that the relationship of the contesting respondents with Abdul Ghafoor has not been denied and being legal heirs of the deceased they can legitimately be considered as landlords for all intents and purposes as defined under Section 2(d) of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009.
8. The ground taken by the petitioners regarding ownership of the property can be agitated before and decided by the Civil Court after recording evidence of concerned parties and such matters neither fall within the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller nor that of this Court. Therefore, the petitioners, if wish so, may approach the Civil Court for redressal of their grievance. Both the learned Courts below have concurrently held against the petitioners. No illegality or irregularity could be pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners calling for interference by this Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction. The case-law cited by learned counsel for the petitioners being distinguishable on facts is neither attracted in this case nor helpful to the petitioners.
9. For what has been discussed above, this writ petition is bereft of any force. The same is dismissed.