' ATIR MAHMOOD, J.---Brief facts of the case are that the respondent Ch. Shafquat Hussain instituted an ejectment petition against the petitioner Manzar Shah before the learned Special Judge Rent, Lahore on 19-4-2007 wherein he asserted that he is owner of property bearing House No,28 Alamgir Park, New Shalimar Road, Chowk Nonarian, Multan Road, Lahore which has three portions; that he rented out one shop at Kalyar side Road in September, 2005 to the petitioner at monthly rent of Rs,2,500 with 10% annual enhancement; that there was a dispute between him and his brother on 14-12-2006 whereupon a criminal case was registered against the respondent and he was sent behind the bars; that taking undue benefit of absence of the respondent, his brother Shaukat Hussain occupied lower portion of the property house and started collecting rent from the tenant including the petitioner; that he served notice upon the petitioner to pay the rent which he did not respond to, therefore, he being a wilful defaulter in payment of rent since December, 2006 is liable to be evicted from the property.
2. The petitioner on receipt of summons appeared before the Court and filed his contesting reply.
He took plea that he was not tenant under the respondent but under his brother Shaukat Hussain to whom he is paying rent regularly. Since the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was denied by the petitioner, the issue to this extent was framed. The parties led their respective evidence. After recording oral as well as documentary evidence and hearing the parties, learned Special Judge Rent, Lahore allowed the ejectment petition vide order dated 3-11-2010 holding that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties exists and that the petitioner is defaulter in payment of rent since December, 2006. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore on 2-12-2010 which remained unsuccessful and was dismissed vide order dated 28-1-2012, hence this writ petition.
3. The only contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is not tenant of the respondent rather he is tenant under elder brother of the respondent namely Shaukat Hussain. He asserted that the petitioner used to pay the rent to said Shaukat Hussain and the dispute between the two brothers cannot be used against the present petitioner. He contended that the respondent was under a legal obligation to get his title cleared from the civil court and then to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. In this regard, he asserted that a civil litigation between the respondent and his brother Shaukat Hussain is pending before this Court.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently contested this petition by submitting that the petitioner contumaciously denied the tenancy. He maintained that the petitioner was inducted in this shop by the respondent at monthly rent of Rs,2,500 in September, 2005 after the respondent purchased this property in August, 2005 through a registered sale deed; that the brother of the respondent Shaukat Hussain filed a false complaint against the respondent wherein the respondent was arrested in connivance with the local police; that taking undue benefit of absence of the respondent, the said Shaukat Hussain not only occupied the upper portion of the house but also the petitioner stopped to pay rent to the respondent which constrained the respondent to file the ejectment petition. He mainly emphasized that being the lawful owner of the property on the basis of registered sale deed, the respondent was a legitimate owner/landlord of the shop in dispute, as such, the ejection petition was competent against the petitioner. He further contended that after the ejectment order was passed and appeal was filed by the petitioner, the learned lower appellate court directed the petitioner to pay rent under section 15(5) of the Punjab Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 which order was not complied with, therefore, the appeal was liable to be dismissed on the sole score of non-compliance of the said order. He lastly submits that there are concurrent findings against the petitioner which are immune from interference by this Court in its constitutional jurisdiction. He also submitted that the impugned orders have already been implemented partly as the possession of the rented premises has been taken over by the respondent through bailiff of the court appointed by the executing court. He has relied upon the dictums laid down in cases reported as Khurram Shuja v. Mst. Kishwar Zia and another (2010 CLC 1557 Lahore), Peer Bakhsh v. Additional District Judge, Multan and 2 others (2005 CLC 1700), Hameed Jilani Tiwana v. Abdul Aziz Ghafoor Khan and 2 others (2005 M LD 1232), Dr. Sher Afgan Khan Niazi v. Ali S. Habib and others (2011 SCM R 1813), Khalid Mehmood v. Collector of Customs, Customs House, Lahore (1999 SCM R 1881), Anjum Niaz Chuandry and 8 others v. Managing Director, Sui North en Gas Pipeline Limited and 2 others (2011 M LD 1402) and Muhammad Akbar Shah v.
Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and 5 others (2011 M LD 1484).
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. It is reflected from the contents of the ejectment petition that the respondent became owner of the property on the basis of registered sale deed dated 22-8-2005 which fact has not been denied by the petitioner while filing his written reply. The contention of the petitioner was that he was inducted in the tenanted premises by brother of the respondent and he never paid any rent to the respondent meaning thereby induction as a tenant in the disputed property is admitted by the petitioner himself. Since the relationship of landlord and tenant was denied, no order under section 13(6) of the Punjab Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 was made by the learned Rent Tribunal.
7. In order to prove his case, the respondent produced his mother Mst. Khadeja Begum as AW.1 who while filing her affidavit as A.1 deposed that she sold out this property to the respondent for a consideration of Rs,380,000. During cross-examination, she stated that initially she was receiving rent from the petitioner. She categorically denied that the respondent fraudulently got transferred the entire house in his name. Volunteered, he purchased the property for an amount of Rs,380,000.
She also replied that she understands everything properly. She denied that Shuakat has any rent agreement regarding the disputed property. She also denied that being mother, she has deposed in favour of the respondent.
8. The respondent appeared as his own witnesses as AW.2 and produced his affidavit as Exh.A.2 in line with the contents of his ejectment petition. During cross-examination, he stated that the petitioner has been paying rent from 20-8-2005 till November, 2006 and earlier, he was paying rent to his mother from whom, he (the respondent) purchased the property. He denied that all the construction of the disputed property was made by Shaukat. He stated that he cannot produce the receipts as the rent was being paid verbally (without any receipts). He also stated that his mother is 75 years of age and she is healthy and mentally fit.
9. In rebuttal, the petitioner appeared before the court as his own witness as RW.3. He deposed that he took the shop on rent from Shaukat Hussain on 2-12-2006 and since then, he is paying rent to him. He also deposed that Mst. Khadeja Begum is about 80 years of age and is insane. During cross-examination, he admitted that the entire property was in the ownership of Mst. Khadeja Begum. He admitted that this property was transferred by Mst. Khadeja Begum to Shafquat (the respondent). He admitted that he has no proof of ownership of Shaukat Hussain. However, he denied that he ever paid any rent to the respondent. During his evidence, he never produced any receipt of payment of rent to said Shaukat Hussain. However, certain receipts were tendered in evidence in statement of learned counsel for the petitioner as Exh. R/1 to R/31 (produced under objection) and rent agreement Exh. R/32 in favour of Shaukat Hussain.
10. The petitioner produced Shaukat Hussain as RW.2 who happened to be brother of the respondent. RW.2 deposed that the shop in dispute was constructed by him and was rented out the same to the petitioner on 2-12-2006 and since then, he is regularly receiving the rent. He deposed that his mother Mst. Khadeja Begum is 80 years of age and that she is insane. He admitted that civil litigation between him and the respondent is continuing. He did not produce any receipt or rent agreement with the petitioner.
' Perusal of above evidence unequivocally reveals that the petitioner himself admits that he is a tenant although he takes stance that he is not tenant under the respondent but his brother Shaukat. He also admits that the property was originally owned by Mst. Khadeja Begum who happened to be mother of the respondent Shafquat Hussain and Shaukat Hussain. He also admits that the property was transferred by Mst. Khadeja Begum in favour of the respondent. He could not show any document in favour of the Shaukat on the basis of which he could even be presumed to be owner of the property. Litigation between two brothers Shaukat Hussain and Shafquat Hussain neither can change the scene that the respondent is owner/landlord of the property nor can give any right to the petitioner who himself admits to be a tenant in the property to ask the landlord to bring a clearance certificate from the court. Prima facie, the respondent on the basis of registered sale deed in his favour by the admitted original owner, i,e, Mst. Khadeja Begum, is owner of the property and mere filing of suit against him does not deprive him from this status until and unless proved otherwise.
11. The contention of RW.2 that his mother is insane is falsified by the deposition of AW.1 Mst. Khadeja Begum who while appearing in the witness box not only stood firm but also answered the suggestion put to her in cross-examination confidently. She also firmly stated that she understands everything properly. However, she was never suggested that she was out of her senses.
12. It is crystal clear from the record that the petitioner contumaciously denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and became a party to the litigation between the two brothers, i,e, Shaukat Hussain and Shafquat Hussain and tried to get undue benefit of litigation between the two rival brothers. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner should not be penalized for litigation between the two brothers lacks force as admittedly, the registered sale deed duly admitted by the vendor in the evidence is in favour of the respondent whereas the other brother Shaukat Hussain has no title document in his favour. It is only his verbal assertion that his mother Mst. Khadeja Begum has transferred the property in favour of the respondent in insanity which he has yet to prove through evidence, though his assertion has been denied by Mst. Khadeja Begum while appearing before the court as AW.1 by stating that she understands everything properly. The petitioner is admittedly a tenant in the property which is owned by the respondent on the basis of registered sale deed in his favour. Therefore, his denial to relationship, of landlord and tenant between him and the respondent is contumacious and based on mala fide just to gain undue benefit from the litigation between the respondent and his brother Shaukat Hussain which he cannot be allowed to.
13. Regarding submission of certain receipts as Exh.R/1 to Exh.R/31 and rent agreement Exh.R/32 in favour of Shaukat Hussain, I am of the considered opinion that production of such receipts or rent agreement R/32 is of no avail to the petitioner as the said receipts as well as alleged rent agreement were never proved by the petitioner in accordance with law. Furthermore, the learned Special Judge Rent was not supposed to decide the ownership of the property. The learned Special Judge Rent after the due appraisal of the evidence came to the conclusion that the petitioner failed to prove that he was tenant of Shaukat Hussain which was upheld by learned lower appellate court. Both the decisions of learned courts below are concurrently against the petitioner which are immune from interference by this Court in its constitutional jurisdiction unless some gross illegality, irregularity, jurisdictional defect or misreading and non-reading is floating on surface which could not be pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner. No interference is called for.
14. Resultantly, this writ petition is bereft of any force, hence dismissed.