This writ petition has been filed by Maulvi Muhammad Tufail with a view to calling in question the order of ejectment made against him by a Rent Controller. The said order had been passed by the learned Rent Controller on an application of respondents Nos. I to 3, Abdur Rehman's and two others, hereinafter referred to as the respondents.
2. It was alleged by ~ the respondents that they had purchased the disputed property from Mian Samee Ullah and others and since the peti--tioner was occupying the property at the time of its sale in their favour be had become their tenant. According to the respondents they had served the petitioner with a notice under section 13-A of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance, informing him that they had purchased the property in ques--tion and requiring him to pay its rent to them but he had not paid any rent and had thus become liable to be evicted on the ground of default. The petitioner opposed the application contending that the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties as, according to him, the property in dispute was owned by Mst. Shamim Akhtar to whom he was regularly paying the rent thereof. The learned Rent Con--troller framed an issue with a view to finding out if the relationship of landlords and tenant existed between the parties. Evidence was led by the parties in support of their respective contentions. The evidence pro--duced by the petitioner included copy of an order made by a Civil Judge in a suit filed by Mst. Shamim Akhtar seeking declaration to the effect that she was owner of the disputed property. In that suit a status quo order had been issued by the learned Civil Judge. On the other hand the respondents produced documentary evidence, including copy of a consent decree, with a view to establishing their ownership of the pro--perty in question. The finding recorded by the learned Rent Controller was that the relationship of landlords and tenant was there between the parties. Since the petitioner had not alleged the payment or tender of any rent to the respondents the learned Rent Controller immediately ordered his eviction on the ground of default without holding any further probe. In view of the stay order issued by the learned Civil Judge, however, it was directed by the learned Rent Controller that the order of eviction shall not take effect till the expiry of four months after the vaca--tion of the stay order. The order of the learned Rent Controller was challenged by the petitioner by taking an appeal before an Additional District Judge which was dismissed. He has, therefore, invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court to assail the orders of the two tribunals below.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the ques--tion of litle to the disputed property was sub judice before the Civil Court, the learned Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to look into the respondents' claim that they were landlords qua the disputed property especially when that status was claimed by the respondents on the ground that they were owners of the said property. It was further maintained by him that the question of title could be determined by a Civil Court and not by a Rent Controller.
4. I do agree With the learned counsel that normally the question oft title relating to any property is to be determined by a Civil Court but if such a question is also raised before a Rent Controller in connection with ejectment proceedings relating to such property, it can also be decided by him although his decision in this behalf would be subject to that Of A the Civil Court. The Rent Controller has exclusive jurisdiction to decide ejectment matters. The pendency of a suit involving questions of title relating to the property in respect of which an ejectment matter is pen--ding before the Rent Controller does not debar him from deciding that! Matter. The pendency of the suit field by Mst. Shamim Akhtar or the stay order issued therein, therefore, did not preclude the learned Rent Controller from deciding the ejectment application filed against the peti--tioner. What has been held by him is that as things stand at present the respondents ought to be treated as owners and landlords of the property in dispute. This finding could be recorded by him notwithstanding the pendency of the civil suit of mst. Shamim Akhtar although, as already stated, his finding in this behalf is subject to the ultimate decision of the question, of title raised in the said suit. In this view of the matter, I am unable to agree with the learned counsel that the learned Rent Controller had no authority to decide question relating to the existence of relation--ship of landlords and tenant between the parties.
5. The next point raised by the learned counsel was that the learned Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to make an order of petitioner's eject--ment in future. In other words, his contention was that he could not direct that his order shall take effect after the vacation of the stay order issued by the Civil Court. There is nothing in the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance to show that such an order could not be made by the learned Rent Controller. As indicated above according to the stay order issued by the Civil Court status quo is to be maintained in all respects.
The parties to the ejectment petition are also parties to the civil suit and thus the a stay order was binding on all of them. It was with a view to saving the parties and himself from embarrassment that the learned Rent Controller had directed that his order shall operate after vacation of the B stay order. The Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance does not insist that an order of ejectment.
If made, shall take effect immediately. Instead, the provisions of sub section (2) of section 13 of the said Ordi--nance permit a Rent Controller to allow time upto four months for vacating the premises in respect of which such an order is made by him. The order passed by the learned Rent Controller is also beneficial to the petitioner inasmuch as he can continue occupying the premises in ques--tion till the vacation of the stay order. If the order of ejectment had been implemented immediately. He would have been thrown out of the said premises by now. Therefore, in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction which, undoubtedly, is the discretionary jurisdiction vesting in this Court. I am not inclined to interfere in the order passed by the. Learned Rent Controller.
6. Resultantly, this writ petition fails. It is dismissed in limine,