IBAD-UR-REHMAN LODHI J.:- This appeal as also FAO No.74 of 2014 (Irfan Fazal & another vs. Mian Abdul Majeed & another), are to be decided together by means of this common judgment, as in both the appeals, judgment passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, Rawalpindi Cantonment, on 20.05.2014, has been called in question by the appellants.
2. It was not so complicated and intricate matter, which, but was made so complicated like labyrinth and the ejectment, which was sought on two grounds viz. Sub-letting and default in payment of rent, was converted into a rigmarole, and a landlord has been entangled in a web as if created by a spider. Not only the clever tenants played havoc with the landlord, but our system also encouraged such tenants to continue with their nefarious designs and to play with the property of the landlord, like anything, but not law abiding tenants.
3. Admitted position remains there that, originally in 1996, Irfan Fazal alongwith his wife Mst. Nabila Irfan, got the Basement of a Plaza on rent from respondent No.1 and subsequently without any express or implied permission of landlord, it was compartmentalized into ten portions and all such portions independently were sub-letted to ten different persons. During this period, the couple tenants, spent three years in U.S.A, but the property remained in possession of the sub-lettees and Mirza Altaf Baig, who was appointed as Manager/Caretaker by the tenants, used to receive the rent from the sub-lettees for its further entrustment to the tenants/present appellants. The landlord, however, remained deprived not only from any income from the rent of the property, but also to use the same for his own benefit.
4. When the landlord filed ejectment petition, although he was once successful in getting the ejectment orders from the Rent Controller, but from this Court, the matter was remanded back to the Rent Tribunal and once the matter reached upto the apex Court and from where it was reverted to the court of original jurisdiction i.e. Rent Tribunal or Civil Court. The forum of Civil Court was introduced in the litigation by giving the nature to such litigation an impression of tripartite litigation. The sole purpose remained seems to be to deprive the landlord to get any benefit either in shape of rent or in shape of possession of the suit property.
5. The Manager appointed by the tenants in order to collect the rent from the sub-lettees, namely, Mirza Altaf Baig, appeared as a witness, and after going through his statement made on oath, nothing else is required to establish the issue relating to sub-letting and default in payment of rent in favour of the landlord. The relevant portion of his statement is beneficial in order to better understanding as to who is playing what role in tug of war and to resolve the controversy, which is reproduced here-under:- {{ URDU TEXT }} In cross examination he replied that: {{ URDU TEXT }} All the sub-tenants did appear before the Rent Controller in the witness-box and deposed that, they were inducted in the property as sub-tenants by the appellants and they used to pay the rent to Mirza Altaf Baig, appointed Manager by the appellants-tenants.
6. The entitlement of either the original tenants or landlord to collect the rent of the property, has been made subject-matter of a civil suit, which remained pending and in the garb of such litigation, the ejectment order is not being permitted to be executed. Such dispute can be resolved by any competent forum, but so far as the question of eviction from the property by persons in possession and handing over its peaceful and vacant possession to the landlord, it merits to be decided forthwith, for the reason that, no one is to be allowed to play mockery with the process of justice, which role has been adopted by the appellants in this litigation.
7. Simple and clear is that, both the issues i.e. Sub-letting and default in payment of rent, have been proved not only by affirmative evidence of the ejectment petitioner, but also by evidence produced by the appellants/respondents in the ejectment petition; hence, there must be no escape, but for directing forthwith ejectment of the persons in occupation of the property.
8. Both the appeals have no merits and are dismissed with a direction to the executing court to apply all available means to get possession of the questioned property for its handing over to the landlord/respondent No.1 herein.
9. The question of entitlement of the amount of rent will be decided by the forum, where it is already pending. The landlord, however, will be compensated adequately as to his right to receive the rent for the period for which he was deprived from his such right and the appellants-tenants used to receive the same from their sub-lettees.
10. During arguments, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has pointed out that, out of said litigation, noted herein-above, a Private Complaint titled as "Mr. Imran Fazal vs. The State & 9 others), under Sections, 324, 114, 119, 147, 149, 452 PPC, was filed by one Imran Fazal (lastly pending in the court of Mr. Shahid Hameed Ch., learned Magistrate Section 30, Rawalpindi and next date is fixed as 14.12.2015), relating to some stated incident in the year, 2006, and according to the learned counsel, the trial court, whichever it is, is not being allowed to conclude the proceedings of trial of said Private Complaint.
11. The learned Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, is directed to ensure the final disposal of said criminal Private Complaint by the end of January, 2016, under intimation to this Court through the Deputy Registrar (Judicial).