' Through the instant petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 the petitioners assail the judgment dated 16.2.2015 of the learned Additional District Judge, Renala Khurd, District Okara, accepting appeal of Respondent No, 1 against judgment of the learned Civil Judge, Renala Khurd, District Okara, 27.5.2014 whereby her ejectment petition was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Respondent No, 1 filed ejectment petition against the petitioners alleging therein that she is owner in possession of plot measuring 5 1/2 marlas, situated at Mauza Mopalka, Tehsil Renala Khurd, District Okara (hereinafter referred to as "the demised premises").
She rented out the said plot to Petitioner No, 1 for a period of seven (7) years (April, 2007 to 30th April, 2014) @ Rs, 5000/- per annum by way of a written agreement of tenancy dated 3.4.2007 for the purposes of installation of a "chaki". It is alleged that Petitioner No, 1 defaulted in payment of rent, in addition to transferring possession of the rented plot to Petitioner No,
2. The petitioners contested the petition. In their written reply they denied the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. They also denied the ownership of Respondent No,
1. As per their stance, the demised premises is owned by Petitioner No, 2/Munir Ahmed. They also denied execution of tenancy agreement and claimed that the same has been fabricated by Respondent No, 1 with mala fide intention. Out of divergent pleadings of the parties, learned Rent Tribunal framed the necessary issues and after recording evidence of both the parties, dismissed the ejectment petition, vide judgment dated 27.5.2014. Respondent No, 1 filed appeal, which was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Renala Khurd, vide judgment dated 16.2.2015.
Aggrieved, the petitioners have filed the instant writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the impugned judgment of the lower appellate Court is contrary to law and facts on record; that Respondent No, 1/ejectment petitioner failed to prove on record that she is owner of the demised premises; that the original tenancy agreement has not been produced on record and only a copy of the same has been produced, which is not admissible in evidence; that no solid and reliable evidence was produced by Respondent No, 1 to prove existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties; that the alleged agreement of tenancy is forged and fabricated; that the impugned judgment suffers from misreading and non-reading of material evidence on record; that Respondent No, 1 has failed to bring on record any cogent and reliable evidence to prove that Petitioner No, 1 was inducted in the demised premises as a tenant by Respondent No, 1; that the learned Rent Tribunal rightly dismissed the ejectment petition and the learned lower appellate Court has reversed the judgment of the Rent Tribunal without any legal justification; that as per report of the Local Commission, appointed by the learned Rent Tribunal, the demised premises is owned and possessed by Petitioner No, 2; and that the judgment of the learned lower appellate Court is not sustainable in the eye of law and deserve to be set-aside and that of the learned Rent Tribunal should be restored.
4.Conversely, learned counsel for Respondent No, 1 contended that relationship of landlord and tenant is proved on record, that the original tenancy agreement was in custody of Petitioner No, 1 and photocopy of the same was given to Respondent No, 1; that one of the marginal witnesses Imdad Ali as well as son of the stamp vendor/deed writer, namely, Ansar Ali have supported version of Respondent No, 1; that Petitioner No, 1 has no right, to question the ownership of Respondent No, 1 after having entered into a tenancy agreement with her; that determination of question of ownership by appointing a Local Commission was beyond the jurisdiction of the learned Rent Tribunal; and that judgment of the learned lower appellate Court does not suffer from any legal infirmity, therefore, the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
5.Arguments heard. Record perused.
6.The main controversy between the parties is whether there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between them. Respondent No, 1 has relied upon copy of tenancy agreement dated 3.4.2007 in support of her version. On the other hand, Petitioner No, 1 has taken the stance that the said tenancy agreement is forged and the actual caner of the demised premises is Petitioner No,
2. A tenant cannot an question the title of the landlord and he has to only prove that there does not exist relationship of "landlord" and "tenant" between the parties. As per settled law even the person entitled to receive rent falls within the definition of "landlord". Reliance in this regard is placed on the case of Mst. Riffat Shahid v. Additional District Judge, Lahore and 2 others (2011 M LD 1383). In this view of the matter the petitioner had to prove the fact that he had not entered into any tenancy agreement with Respondent No,
1. The learned Rent Tribunal in this regard framed Issue No, 1 onus to prove of which was placed on Respondent No, 1/ejectment petitioner. She produced Imdad Ali as A.W.2, he verified the factum of execution of the rent agreement (Ex.A.1) in his presence as he was also one of the marginal witnesses. He also stated that Rs, 5000/- were given by Petitioner No, 1 to Respondent No, 1 at the time of execution of the rent agreement. This witness admitted his signatures on Ex. A.1 (Rent Agreement). He also corroborated the statement of Respondent No, 1 to the effect that original tenancy agreement was retained by Petitioner No, 1 while copy thereof was handed over to Respondent No,
1. The learned Rent Tribunal had .Made basis of his findings of non- existence of any tenancy agreement between the parties on statement made by A.W.3 during cross-examination that no agreement was executed between Petitioner No, 1 (Hanif) and Respondent No, 1 (Zahida) in his presence. The learned Rent Tribunal has misread the evidence of A.W.3. It has nowhere the stance of Respondent No, 1 that A.W.3 was present at the time of execution of the tenancy agreement between the parties. In the ejectment petition Respondent No, 1 has mentioned that the tenancy agreement was signed by two marginal witnesses. It has further been mentioned that one marginal witness, namely, Malik Imdad Ali stood marginal witness from Respondent No, l's side whereas one Rana Ehsan-ul-Haq from the tenant/Muhammad Hanif/Petitioner No,
1. The petitioners have failed to produce the said Rana Ehsan-ul-Haq to controvert the claim of Respondent No,
1. The said Rana Ehsan-ul-Haq is brother-in-law of Petitioner No, 1, which is evident from evidence of Munir Ahmed, R.W.1. The stamp vendor/scribe of the tenancy agreement, namely, Ali Muhammad has died. His son, namely, Ansar Ali, appeared as A.W.S. He identified the writing and signatures of his father . On the tenancy agreement (Ex.A.1). He denied the suggestion that the said document is a forged one. Petitioner No, j while appearing as R.W.2 during; his cross-examination admitted that he along with Petitioner No, 2 had gone to Bama Bala where they had put their signatures on a blank stamp paper, which was later on converted into tenancy agreement. From these facts relationship of landlord and tenant was established on record. It was proved on record that Petitioner No, 1 was inducted in the demised premises by Respondent No, 1 as a, tenant terms whereof were mentioned in the tenancy agreement Ex.A.1. No doubt original tenancy agreement has not been produced by any of the parties and only a copy of this document has been placed on record. However, execution of this document has been fully proved by production of oral evidence by Respondent No,
1. Even from statement of Petitioner No, 1 it is evident that the tenancy agreement copy, whereof has been brought on the record as Ex.A.1 was executed between the parties. The findings of the learned Rent Tribunal are the result of misreading of evidence available on record. The learned lower appellate Court has thus rightly set- aside judgment of the learned Rent Tribunal. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that judgment of the learned lower appellate. Court is the true reflection of evidence on record.
Respondent No, 1 has been successful in proving relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and in view of denial of this relation by the petitioners, the learned lower appellate Court has rightly passed eviction order against them. In the case of Hakim-udDin v. Faiz Bakhsh and others (2007 SCM R 870) it has been observed that "it is a basic and fundamental principle of administration of justice that in case there is a conflict between the judgments of the trial Court and the First Appellate Court, then normally judgment of the First Appellate Court is to be given preference over the judgment of trial Court, unless and until the judgment of First Appellate Court is based on misreading or non-reading or in violation of the principles laid down by the superior Courts." In the present case learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any piece of evidence which has been misread or non-read by the learned lower appellate Court while passing the impugned judgment. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned judgment has been passed in accordance with law and does not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction.
7. For the reasons stated above, the instant writ petition being devoid of any substance is dismissed.