.Rao Ahmad Saeed Khan filed petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (1973) that property bearing No. S-6-R-46/2 was transferred to the petitioner by the Settlement Department, who surrendered his rights with regard to half portion of the said property through an association, whereafter permanent transfer deed was issued in his name and in the names of Fakhar-ud-Din and Shamas-ud-Din, who agreed to sell the half -portion to him and an agreement deed was executed; that Fakhar-ud-Din and Shamas-ud-Din had been receiving various amounts from the petitioner and ultimately, a deed of sale was executed on 23-12-1976, which was registered on 28-12-1976; that respondent No. 1 claiming to be the owner of the property on the basis of the sale deed dated 23-5-1966 executed in his favour by Muhammad Bakhsh, the alleged attorney of Fakhar-ud-Din and Shamas-ud-Din, filed an ejectment petition against him on the grounds of the default, subletting and damage to the property; that the petition was contested by him, wherein he denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and non-service of notice under section 30 of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, and it was specifically stated that he was in possession of the property as owner; that the learned Rent Controller accepted the ejectment petition on 2-3-1980, filed by Abdul Hafiz; that he filed an appeal, which was dismissed on 3-6-1980; that he filed S. A. O. No. 381/1980, which abated in view of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Amendment Ordinance, 1980. The order of the learned Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge, Lahore, have been challenged on the grounds that the petitioner was in possession of property in his own right as owner under sale deed dated 23-12- 1976 executed in his favour by the owners Shamas-ud-Din and Fakhar-ud-Din; that Abdul Hafiz respondent No. 1 had claimed to be the landlord of the dieputed property on the basis of a sale deed allegedly executed by Malik Muhammad Bakhsh, who claimed to be the general attorney of Shamas-ud-Din and Fakhar-ud-Din, but the petitioner had disputed the authority of Muhammad Bakhsh to execute the sale deed; that the power of attorney in favour of Malik Muhammad Bakhsh was not produced in evidence by respondent No. 1; that the learned Additional District Judge erred in relying upon the copy of the power of attorney holding that Malik Muhammad Bakhsh had authority to execute the sale deed, which was neither produced in evidence nor exhibited.
2. The respondent filed a written statement wherein, he controverted the allegations of the petitioner. It was stated by respondent No. 1 that the disput--ed property was transferred to the petitioner, who borrowed Rs.12,000 from Malik Muhammad Bakhsh with which he purchased compensation book of Fakhar-ud-Din and Shamas-ud-Din for adjustment towards the price of the disputed property and at the instance of Muhammad Bakhsh, the petitioner executed a deed of association in favour of Fakhar-ud-Din and Shamsud--Din in respect of the southern half portion of the disputed property; that Fakhar-ud-Din executed a power of attorney dated 1-1-1962, in favour of Malik Muhammad Bakhsh; that the petitioner agreed to return the amount of Rs.12,000 to Muhammad Bakhsh, general attorney of the associates within three years failing which, the petitioner was to lose all his interest in the surrendered portion and on the demand of the sale amount the said general attorney was to execute sale deed in respect of the half portion in favour of the writ petitioner and in the meanwhile that writ petitioner was to pay Rs.100 per month by way of rent of the disputed portion to said Malik Muhammad Bakhsh and on non-payment, for a continuous period of three months, the agreement of sale dated 1-1-1962 was to be cancelled and Malik Muhammad Bakhsh was authorised to cancel the deed and dispose of the disputed property to any other person; that on 8-1-1965, the writ petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of the aforesaid contract against Fakhar-ud-Din etc. And a compromise decree was passed on 24-2- 1966 on the terms that the petitioner would pay Rs.12,000 to the defendants within two months and his suit shall stand decreed and failing the said payment the suit shall stand dismissed but the payment was not made in terms of decree and thus Fakhar-ud-Din and Sham-ud--Dm were competent to dispose of the half portion; that Fakhar-ud-Din and Shamas-ud-Din through their general attorney Malik Muhammad Bakhsh sold the disputed portion in favour of respondent No. 1 vide sale deed dated 23-5-1966; that the writ petitioner filed a suit on 25-11-1966, for a declaration that he was the owner in possession of the property and the defendants were debarred from enforcing any right with respect to it with permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with his possession, but the suit was dismissed on 24-6-1963 against which, no appeal was filed; that the respondent filed an ejectment petition against the writ petitioner, which was dismissed, on 12-9-1975, on the ground that a valid notice under section 30 had not been served; that it had, however, been held by the learned Rent Controller that relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties; that respondent No. 1 served notice under section 30 to the petitioner on 1-6- 1976 and filed second ejectment petition against him on 2-2-1977, which was accepted and the appeal filed by the writ petitioner was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge. It was further submitted in the written statement that Fakhar-ud-Din and Shamas-ud-Din had not filed any suit for getting the sale deed in favour of res--pondent No. 1 cancelled, but in the meanwhile the writ petitioner, in collusion with Fakhar-ud-Din and Shamas-ud-Din got a sale deed registered in his favour on 28-12-1976; that Fakhar-ud-Din and Shamas-ud-Din had no right to dispose of the disputed property, which they had already sold to respondent No. 1 and the sale deed in favour of the writ petitioner conferred no title on him.
3. 1n the ejectment petition, decided by the learned Rent Controller on 12-9-1975, the following issues had been framed
(1) Whether there existed relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties ?
(2) Whether the Court had jurisdiction to proceed with the applica--tion ?
The parties produced their respective evidence and Issue No 1 was decided in favour of landlord Abdul Hafiz. Issue No. 2 was decided against the landlord on the ground that no notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, had been served on Rao Ahmad Saeed Khan. Since Issue No. 1 had been decided against Rao Ahinad Saeed Khan tenant, he preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 6- 12-1975. The petitioner served a fresh notice on Rao Ahmad Saeed Khan and when he did not pay the rent, he filed the ejectment petition in November, 1976, which was accepted and against which order, the petitioner filed appeal, which was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 3-6-1980.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had purchased the disputed portion from Shamas-ud-Din and Fakhar-ud---Din vide registered sale deed 13-12-1976, and thus had become the owner of the disputed portion and was in possession in his own right that the petitioner had filed suit for specific performance against Fakhar-ud-Din and Sharnas-ud-Din through Malik Muhammad Bakhsh their general power of attorney, which was decreed on 24-2- 1966 after the compromise between the parties had been arrived at and in pursuance of that decree, the petitioner had been making payments on various dates to Shamas-ud-Din and Fakhar--ud-Din. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the power of attorney in favour of Malik Muhammad Bakbsh had not been produced before the learned Rent Controller nor Malik Muhammad Bakhsh. And thus the writ petitioner had been deprived of valuable right of cross-examination; that the question of ownership was involved .And the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to decide the ejectment petition; that it was a case of civil nature and the jurisdiction of the learned Rent Controller was barred.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that Fakhar-ud--Din and Shamas-ud-Din had appointed Malik Muhammad Bakhsh as their general attorney, who had been given full power to dispose of the disputed property by sale or mortgage; that Fakhar-ud-Din while appear' g as P.
W. 3 admitted that Muhammad Bakhsh was appointed as his attorney; that the suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by Rao Ahmad Saeed Khan against Fakhar-ud-Din and Sbamas- ud-Din through their general attorney Malik Muhammad Bakhsh, clearly proved that the writ petitioner admitted Malik Muhammad Bakhsh as the general attorney of Fakhar-ud-Din and Shamas-ud-Din; that the said suit was compromised and Rao Ahmad Saeed Khan writ petitioner and Malik Muhammad Bakhsh, general attorney of Fakhar-ud-Din and Shamas-ud-Din had signed their statements before the learned Civil Judge and on the basis of those state--ments, the suit was decreed on 24-2-1966 on the condition that Rao Ahmad Saeed Khan shall make the payment of Rs.12,000 within two months and get the sale deed registered and in case, of failure, the suit shall be deemed to have been dismissed; that Rao Ahmad Saeed Khan failed to make the payment of Rs.12,000 within two months and also failed to get the sale deed registered in accordance with the decree; that the decision of the learned Rent Controller in the earlier ejectment petition with regard to Issue No. I had become final and binding on the parties, wherein, it was held that there existed relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties; that the suit filed by the writ petitioner for declaration and per--manent injunction against Fakhar-ud-Din and Shamas-ud-Din through their general attorney Malik Muhammad Bakhsh and Abdul Hafeez landlord was dismissed on 26-4- 1968 and the writ petitioner did not file any appeal against the said judgment and decree; that Fakhar-ud-Din and Shamas-ud--Din had not filed any suit against the general attorney Malik Muhammad Bakhsh or Abdul Hafiz regarding the disputed property. It was also contended that even if it be assumed without conceding that an erroneous view bad been taken up by the learned Rent Controller and the learned Additional District Judge, the same could not be challenged in a writ petition and only the question of jurisdiction could be challenged.
6. It stood proved on the record that Abdul Hafiz had filed an ejectment petition against Rao Ahmad Saeed Khan and in that ejectment petition, one of the two issues was as to whether there existed relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and this issue was decided in favour of Abdul Hafiz and it was held by the learned Rent Controller in order dated I2-9-1975 that the disputed property was purchased by Abdul Hafiz from Malik Muhammad Bakhsh, who was general attorney of Shamas-ud-Din and Fakhar-ud-Din and thus had become the owner of the disputed property. Rao Ahmad Saeed Khan filed an appeal against the said order, which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge. The decision on this issue between parties had become final. Rao Ahmad Saeed Khan had come to know that Abdul Hafiz had purchased the disputed premises from Malik Muhammad Bakhsh, who was a general attorney of Shamas-ud-- Din and Fakhar-ud-Din but he did not file any suit for the cancellation of the said sale nor Shamas- ud-Din and Fakhar-ud-Din had filed any suit against Abdul Hafiz or Malik Muhammad Bakhsh regarding the disputed property. After the close of the evidence of the parties, Abdul Hafiz filed an application with a prayer that he may be permitted to place on record the copy of the statement of Fakhar-ud-Din, which he made as R. W. 3 in the learlier ejectment petition. He made a further prayer that he may be allowed to place on record the certified copy of Mukhtarnama of Fakhar- ud-Din sand Shamas-ud-Din in favour of Malik Muhammad Bakhsh. This applica--tion was not allowed, as according to the learned Rent Controller, it had been filed with delay and Abdul Hafiz had been given ample opportunity to `' produce his evidence. Rao Ahmad Saeed Khan had filed the written reply on 24-3-1977. He filed a list of documents and in this list, eleven documents had been mentioned, which included photostat copy of P. T. O. Dated 10-1-1962, photostat copy of P. T. D., copy of agreement dated 1-1-1962, copy of order dated 24-2-1966, copy of compromise dated 24- 2-1966, receipt 5,800, receipt dated 25-3-1976, receipt dated 7-6-1975, receipt dated 8-4-1976, certified copy of the registered sale deed in favour of the defendant, photostat copy of the order of learned Additional District Judge, dated 6-12-1975. The petitioner admitted while appearing as R. W.
2 that he ad filed an appeal to challenge the decision of the Rent Controller t to whether there existed relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. He denied the suggestion that he had filed the suit for permanent junction against Fakhar-ud-Din, Shamas-ud-Din Malik Muhammad Bakhsh Abdul Hafiz, but again stated that he did not remember if the said was dismissed. He himself had placed copy of the judgment, dated 24-2-1966 and this suit had been filed by him against Fakhar-ud-Din and Shamas-ud-Din through their attorney Malik Muhammad Bakhsh. He had a so filed copy of the compromise, which was signed by him and Muhammad Bakbsh, an attorney of Fakhar-ud-Din. In the earlier suit, he clearly admitted that Muhammad Bakhsh was attorney of Shamas-ud-Din and Fakhar-ud-Din. It was a conditional decree. The writ petitioner failed to make the payment of Rs.12,000 within two months and failed to get the sale deed registered. It was clearly mentioned in the order of the learned Civil Judge dated 24-2-1966 that in case, he failed to make the payment within two months and get the sale deed registered, the suit shall be deemed to have been dismissed. That decree was not available to the writ petitioner. The petitioner also admitted that at the time of filing application for ejectment, he had come to know that the disputed property had, been purchased by Abdul Hafiz. He admitted in cross---/examination that he had not filed any suit for the cancellation of the said sale. In the earlier ejectment petition, the receipts produced before the learned Rent Controller in the subsequent application, had not been filed. In case, he had been in possession of those receipts, he would have produced the same in the earlier ejectment petition. He further admitted that at the time Fakhar-ud-Din and Shamas-ud-Din had been made associate Muhammad Bakhsh had appeared. Rent Controller is not a civil Courtand the provisions of C. P. C. Are not strictly applicable.
The documents on which Rao Ahmad Saeed Khan had placed reliance could be taken into consideration. The learned Rent Controller rightly decided the two issues in favour of Abdul Hafiz landlord. The learned Additional District Judge, dismissed the appeal giving sound reasons. The writ petition is without any merits, which is dismissed with costs.