This is a writ petition by a tenant challenging the orders of Rent Controller, Lahore dated 11-1-1980 and of the appellate authority dated 26-10-1981 whereby the eviction application of the landlord was allowed on the ground of re-construction.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has been: a tenant of a shop in a larger premises known as Alkarim Building bearing survey No. 19/R/86, the Mall, Lahore. The landlord had filed the eviction applica--tion before the Rent Controller on 22-11-1979 on the ground that they had got a plan sanctioned from the appropriate authorities for the cons--truction of a new multistoried building. The learned Rent Controller heard both the parties and after recording evidence and taking into consi--deration all the pleas of the parties, ordered the eviction of the petitioner/ tenant and allowed him two months time to vacate the premises. The matter went up in appeal; and the learned Additional District Judge acting as an appellate authority by order dated 26-10-1981 dismissed the appeal. He concurred with the order of the learned Rent Controller in so far as re- construction was concerned. He also repelled the contention of the tenant in-defence sought to be raised on the basis of pendency of an app--lication filed by the Administrator General, Punjab in the High Court with respect to the character of the property. It was found that the landlords were the transferees from the Settlement Department w.e.f. 2-10-1964 and P. T. D. Had also been issued.
The relationship of landlord and tenant was proved to exist between the parties. It may be mentioned here that prior to the institution of the present writ petition, the petitioner/tenant had also filed a civil suit on the plea that since there was an application by the Adminis--trator General, Punjab, pending before the High Court, therefore, he could not be ejected till that matter was decided. The suit was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge on 24-2-1981. An appeal was also filed against the same which too was dismissed on 16-7-1981. Therefore, the present writ petition was filed on 12-12-1981.
3. The first ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Rent Controller had failed to correctly appreciate the (e.i)--dence brought forth by the petitioner and the appellate authority was equally in error in confirming his order. I am afraid that the contention has no force for the reason that appreciation of evidence falls within the exclusive domain of the tribunals below and that does not render the order, of a tribunal as being without jurisdiction. No misreading or perversity of approach has been pointed out. There was also half hearted arguments raised in so far as bona fide requirement of the landlord is concerned but nothing has been urged or shown to dislodge the weight of concurrent findings of the two tribunals below. This contention therefore, also fails.
4. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the appellate authority ought to have taken into consideration the fact that the title of the landlord was in dispute as proceedings were pending before the High Court at the instance of the Administrator General, Punjab. I am unable to agree with this contention for the short reason that any cloud of doubt created regarding the title of the landlord by a third party in a separate proceeding before a different forum is wholly insufficient to oust the jurisdiction of a tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction who has to determine the disputes between a landlord and tenant. Admittedly, the pri--vate respondents at the time of institution of the eviction application as at the time of decision of the appeal were the landlords. The mere fact that a third pay is attempting to assail their title is not a valid ground for avoiding eviction proceedings validly instituted and determined under the Rent Ordinance.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents additionally relies on two single Bench decisions of this Court in Writ Petition No. 260/R/1980 do dated on 8-3-1981 and Writ Petition No-1142 of 1981 decided on 3-3-1981 which were filed by the other tenants of the same premises on almost identical grounds. Noting has been urged against the view taken in these two precedent cases. I, would therefore, respectfully follow the same. However, at this stage both the learned counsel after mutual consultation have come to a compromise on behalf of their respective clients to the effect that the petitioner will hand over the vacant and peaceful possession to the landlord on 8-7-1972 subject to his continuing to regularly pay the monthly rent to the landlord at the agreed rate. In terms of the compromise which is allowed, it is directed that the petitioner would hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the premises to the landlords/ respondents on 8-7-1982 and will continue to pay the monthly rent due upto that period. The writ petition is dismissed but there will be, no order as to costs.