M. BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J -Through this petition leave is sought to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 3-11-1981, in Writ Petition No. 121, of 1981.
2. The facts which led to the present petition are that Ch. Muhammad Iqbal, respondent No. 1 brought an ejectment application against the petitioner for eviction from a shop, inter alias, on the ground of bona fide personal need. He was evicted by the learned Rent Controller, and his appeal before the learned District Judge also failed. Thereafter, the validity of the ejectment order was challenged before the Lahore High Court, Rawal--pindi Bench, through judicial review. The circumstances under which the Courts ordered the eviction of the petitioner were that there exists relation--ship of landlord and tenant and the demised property belongs to the wife of respondent No. 1 and that she let out the shop to the petitioner and respondent No. 1 collected rent from him through Qazi Ijaz Ahmad. The respondent No. 1 who is an Advocate took up the stand that he managed the property of his wife and leased out the shop to the petitioner. Qazi Ijaz Ahmad was his junior who collected the rent on his behalf and paid it to him. He also accepted that the rent was earlier recovered by him through his clerk.
3. The learned Rent Controller, on evaluation of the evidence of the parties on the preliminary issue, as to whether the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties, came to the conclusion that the respondent's wife observes parda; the shops was let out to the petitioner by him; being a busy lawyer he could not collect the rent himself, and his junior Qazi Ijaz Ahmad, after collection of the rent, handed it over to the respondent and not to his wife. The learned Rent Controller thus believed the respondent's evidence, discarded the petitioner's version and answered the preliminary issue against them. He also maintained that the petitioners having denied the relationship of landlord and tenant were not entitled to prove their other pleas on merits of the case and ordered their eviction.
4. In dismissing the appeal of the petitioner the learned District Judge upheld the findings of the Rent Controller on the preliminary issue and further held that the petitioner did not come to the Court with clean hands, their denial of relationship of landlord, and tenant, was wilful and con-- tumacious.
5. The learned Judge of the High Court considered that the contentions of the petitioner have been extensively dealt with by the learned Courts below, who on the basis of evidence before them, as a matter of fact, found that the shops in question were let out to the petitioners by the respondent and that Qazi Ijaz Ahmad or others who received rent from them, collected the same on behalf of the respondent and paid it to him. This being a finding of fact, cannot be reviewed in these proceedings by reappraisal of evidence. Upon the language of section 2(c) the expression `landlord' is not limited to an `owner' only, and a person entitled to receive rent is clothed with the status of `landlord'.
6. The learned counsel contended before us that the learned Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to pass an order of ejectment on the basis of pleas on which neither any issue was framed nor any evidence was recorded. Thus the orders of the Courts below are without any jurisdiction, illegal and therefore, of no legal effect. He further contended that it is on the record that the shop in question was initially rented out at Rs. 30 p.m. Which was later enchanced to Rs. 45 p .m. And. Then an ejectment petition was filed which was later withdrawn for the reason that rent was enchanced from Rs. 45 p.m. To Rs. 90 p.m. The effect of the filing and withdrawal of this earlier ejectment petition was not considered by the Courts below; had this aspect of the case been considered by the Courts below, the result of the case would have been different. These facts clearly indicate, he further argued, that the ejectment petition brought by respondent No. 1 was mala fide and as such there was no ground for ejectment of the petitioner from the suit shop.
7. We may mention here that this petition for leave to appeal is barred by 15 days and an application for the condonation of delay was also filed. The grounds taken up in this application are not convincing and the petitioner has not been able to show that he had approached the Copying Branch for the copies of the impugned judgment but the same were no delivered to him in time and that date of delivery of the said copy was changed from time to time. Thus it is not a case where the petitioner would be entitled to condonation of delay. The impugned judgment has deal with the question of jurisdiction and held that there is no jurisdictional error in the judgment and the question as to whether or not the petitioner's denial of relationship of landlord and tenant, was contumacious, was also a question on which the learned District Judge in his judgment has given good reasons for inferring that petitioner's act was contumacious. We have not been persuaded to differ with the learned Judge of the High Court, and we consider this petition is without merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.