' MUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN, J.---This Writ Petition arises from consolidated judgment dated 3-10-2012 whereby the learned District Judge Faisalabad dismissed petitioners' appeal against the order dated 23-6-2012 of the learned Civil Judge Faisalabad whereby they were directed to hand over possession of the disputed premises to the respondent. Through the same impugned judgment, appeal of the respondent for recovery of arrears of rent was also partly accepted and appellants were held liable to pay arrears of past rent of 32 months amounting to Rs,12,80,000 to the respondent.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Abdul Wahab Rashid (hereinafter to be referred to as 'respondent') filed an ejectment petition against the petitioners alleging that he being the landlord of the premises in question rented out the same to the petitioners on monthly rent of Rs,4,000 through agreement dated 8-10-2003 till December, 2009, but after expiry of the tenancy period, neither the petitioners vacated the premises nor paid the rent. Petitioners contested the ejectment petition with the averments that they were not the tenants, rather they were the owners of the premises in dispute. In the aforesaid context, they had also filed a suit for cancellation of the questioned registered sale-deeds. The learned trial court framed the issues and recorded evidence of the parties and consequently by accepting the ejectment petition directed the petitioners to hand over the possession of the rented premises to respondent vide impugned order dated 23-6-2012. Being aggrieved both the petitioners as well as respondent assailed the same and the learned Judge of the appellate court seized thereof, dismissed petitioners appeal and partly accepted the appeal preferred by respondent as aforementioned. Hence this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that petitioners neither entered into any tenancy agreement with the respondent nor they are occupying the disputed property as tenants. Rather it was the respondent who manipulated and fabricated the rent deed allegedly bearing their signatures thereon. It was also contended that petitioners were in possession of the disputed property as owners and in that capacity they had approached the civil court seeking cancellation of aforesaid sale-deeds. Adds that after dismissal of the aforesaid suit by the trail court under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C., petitioners had filed appeal, and in the event of dismissal of the appeal, ejectment petition was not competent and maintainable, inasmuch as, efficacious remedy available to respondent was to file suit for possession. Since petitioners did not acknowledge the respondent to be the owner of the property in dispute, hence, respondent was precluded from claiming past rent. Furthermore, the petitioners also got a criminal case registered against the respondent for having fabricated and registered the sale deed allegedly bearing the forged signatures of the petitioners thereon.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgment and has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition on the ground that petitioners have failed to substantiate their case through any cogent and credible evidence.
5. Heard. Record perused. Facts of the case reveal that possession of the disputed premises remained with the petitioners since 2003 whereby the property was alienated to respondent through registered sale-deed. Whereas, it was the stance of the petitioners that they held possession of the property as owners and not as tenants. It is no where denied that civil suit of the petitioners for cancellation of the registered sale-deed has already been dismissed by the trial court in terms of Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C., and the appeal arising from the same was also dismissed on 3-10-2012 by the appellate court through a separate judgment. In such an eventuality, the only issue falling for determination inter se the parties was whether any ejectment petition could be entertained against the petitioners, and whether the respondent should have filed suit for possession afresh. This court is of the view that in absence of tenancy agreement inter se the parties, instead of ejectment petition, suit for possession could be the appropriate remedy for the respondent, but the facts of the present case speak for themselves. Undeniably Exh.A2 a written rent deed was executed by Muhammad Iftikhar as tenant in favour of respondent (landlord) on a stamp paper dated 24-9-2004 bearing signatures of petitioner Muhammad Iftikhar and respondent Abdul Wahab attested by two independent and unbiased witnesses who consistently deposed that aforesaid stamp paper was purchased by petitioner Muhammad Iftikhar himself in order to execute the rent deed in favour of respondent, which was so executed in their presence and petitioner Muhammad Iftikhar signed at the back of the Exh.P2. The learned Judge of the appellate court A meticulously examined the contents of Exh.P2 and rightly came to the conclusion as to the genuineness and truthfulness thereof. Besides, petitioners did not deny the possession of the disputed premises. Rather in their written statement they admitted their possession and non payment of rent. Consequent upon rejection of the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. And dismissal of the appeal preferred by the petitioners, it is manifest that the petitioners could not substantiate their claim of being the owners of the property in dispute. As regards Exh. P2 the petitioners alleged that it was a fictitious and fabricated document and they got a criminal case registered against respondent. In this regard I would suffice to subscribe to the findings of the courts below on this particular issue. The learned Judge of the appellate court on elaborate and objective scrutiny of the overwhelming evidence on record came to the conclusion and rightly so that Exh.P2 was neither fictitious nor a fabricated document. Rather respondent successfully established that Exh.P2 was a validly executed document through production of two marginal witnesses, who did not have any ill will, grudge or motive against the petitioners. Both of them consistently and categorically stated that in their presence Exh.P2 was executed by petitioner Muhammad Iftikhar. As regards payment of outstanding rent against the petitioners, examination of Exh.P2 is of prime significance. Both the trial court as well as the appellate court after careful consideration of documentary evidence on record consistently and concurrently held petitioners to be the tenant under the respondent giving rise to an irresistible and inevitable conclusion that petitioners were liable to pay the arrears of rent. Hence, the aforesaid direction issued by the courts below does not appear to be arbitrary or perverse so as to cause any miscarriage of justice.
6. The learned Rent Controller as well as the appellate court in view of admitted facts and evidence on record rightly came to the conclusion that petitioners were tenant under the respondent.
Impugned judgments do not suffer from any legal infirmity or jurisdictional defect, rather the same having been passed with lawful authority and jurisdiction are not open to any exception and interference by this Court in the exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction. Consequently, this petition being palpably meritless is accordingly dismissed with costs.