' MUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN, J.---This appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned Additional Rent Controller, Walton Cantt., Lahore dated 17-9-2013 whereby the ejectment petition filed by respondent against the appellant has been accepted, directing her to vacate the demised premises within 30 days.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed an ejectment petition against the present appellant stating therein that he purchased the house in dispute from her for a consideration of Rs,29,00,000 on 31-1-2003 which was transferred in the name of the respondent in the record of DHA, Lahore Cantt. After completing all formalities. However, the possession of the house was not delivered to the respondent and a request was made by the appellant to give the said house on rent to her so that she might be able to get her new house constructed. The respondent acceded to the request of the appellant/ vendor and the house in question was given on rent to the appellant @ Rs,20,000 per month and tenancy period was fixed as 11 months, Rs,80,000 were also paid as advance rent for four months and Rs,40,000 as refundable security. Rent Deed in this regard was executed between the parties on the same day i,e, 31-1-2013. Subsequently, the appellant defaulted in payment of monthly rent, whereupon the respondent filed ejectment petition against her. The appellant submitted his contesting reply to the ejectment petition in which she denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. She denied the stance of the respondent that he had purchased the house in dispute from the appellant. She claimed that both the title document and rent deed are bogus and fraudulent and that she had filed a suit for cancellation of the same, which is pending before the Civil Court. The learned Rent Controller, vide order dated 25-5-2005 framed the following issues:- Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties? OPP Relief.
' The learned Rent Controller recorded oral as well as documentary evidence of the parties and fixed the case for final arguments. Thereafter on 8-6-2006 the case was adjourned sine die, directing the parties to get their dispute qua the house in dispute settled from the Civil Court.
Aggrieved the respondent challenged the order dated 8-6-2006 before this Court whereupon the impugned order was set aside. After remand, the learned Rent Controller accepted the ejectment petition on 10-4-2008. The appellant filed appeal before this Court bearing F.A.O. No,79 of 2009, which was accepted vide judgment dated 25-7-2011 and the impugned order was set aside while remanding the case to the learned Rent Controller with the following direction:-- "Learned Rent Controller will decide the same afresh after hearing the parties and discussing the evidence with reference to the existence of tenancy between the parties."
' Feeling dissatisfied with the order of this Court dated 25-7-2011, the appellant filed Civil Petition No,1776-L of 2011, which was disposed of by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan on 22-2-2012 with the following observation: ' "that there is no bar for the parties to lead evidence on the core issue i,e, issue No,l."
' The learned Rent Tribunal thereafter recording evidence of the respondent fixed the case for evidence of the appellant. In the meantime the appellant submitted application for verification of the signatures of the appellant by the Handwriting Expert on the rent agreement. The said application was replied by the respondent and on 7-5-2013 the same was dismissed. The appellant was directed to produce her evidence but she failed to adduce any evidence. Consequently, her right to produce evidence was closed. The learned Rent Controller, vide order dated 17-9-2013 accepted the ejectment petition and directed the appellant to vacate the premises within 30 days.
Hence, the instant appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the alleged transfer of the disputed house in the name of the respondent in the record of DHA and thereafter execution of the rent agreement was the result of fraud and misrepresentation, which could only be established by the evidence of the handwriting expert; that the learned Rent Tribunal has caused miscarriage of justice by not calling the handwriting expert for comparison of signatures of the appellant on the alleged rent deed and documents relating to the transfer of title of the house in dispute; that the impugned order being contrary to law is not sustainable in the eyes of law, hence, liable to be set aside.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. As the appellant denied relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the learned Rent Controller framed issue in this regard and directed the parties to adduce their respective evidence. The respondent produced oral as well as documentary evidence to substantiate his version. The record of DHA shows that the house in dispute was transferred by the appellant in the name of the respondent after fulfilling the formalities of the DHA. There is also a written rent agreement between the parties. Though the appellant alleged ownership of the respondent and execution of rent agreement to be the result of fraud but she has failed to get it declared so by any competent court of law. The house in dispute still exists in the name of the respondent in the record of the DHA. Even otherwise, in presence of a rent agreement a "tenant" cannot question the title of the "landlord". However, if the tenant has any reservation qua the title of the "landlord" and she herself has a counter claim she may approach the competent court of law for determination of the controversy of title between the parties. As per settled law, Rent Tribunal is not competent to decide the question of title between the parties as the same can only be determined by the competent court of law.
6. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no illegality or legal infirmity in the impugned order of the learned Additional Rent Controller calling for interference by this Court in appellate jurisdiction.