GULZAR AHMED, J.---The only ground urged by learned ASC for the petitioner is that as the demis e property belongs to Evacuee Trust Properties Board thus by virtue of section 3 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction in the matter .
2. We have considered the submissions of learned ASC for the petitioner and have gone through the record of the case.
3. Respondent No.1 was allottee of demise shop by virtue of PTD No. 20762 dated 28.10.1970. Through agreement dated 20.04.1978 the respondent has inducted the petitioner as tenant of the shop. Respondent No.1 filed ejectment application against the petitioner on the ground that petitioner has failed to pay rent since July 2001 and further the shop was required by respondent No.1 for his own personal bona fide use The matter was contested by the petitioner and Rent Controller after recording the evidence of parties through order dated 14.01.2003 allowed the application on the ground of personal bona fide use but on the ground of default found the petitioner not defaulter in payment of rent. The petitioner filed First Rent Appeal which appeal was allowed on the ground that no relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties. Respondent No.1 filed Constitution Petition in the High Court of Sindh Circuit Court Hyderabad where an order dated 28.8.2006 was passed whereby the case was remanded to the appellate court for passing a speaking order . The appellate court gave its judgment dated 02.3.2007 allowing the appeal on the ground that no relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties. This judgment of appellate court was challenged by the respondent No.1 by filing Constitution Petition which by the impugned judgment dated 27.4.2018 has been allowed by learned Judge in the Chamber of High Court of Sindh Circuit Court. Hyderabad.
4. In the first place we note that the ground urged, by learned ASC for the petitioner before us was not urged before the High Court as we do not find any discussion on it in the impugned judgment. Be that as it may, we have noted that the High Court has proceeded to decide the case on the premises that admitt edly the petitioner was inducted in the premises as tenant by respondent No.1 and even though the PTD in favour of respondent No. 1 be cancelled and such dispute between respondent No.1 and Evacuee Trust Property Board was in litigation, by cancellation of PTD, the relationship of landlord and tenant between respondent No.1 and petitioner could not cease as it will continue. We agree with the reasons assigned by the learned Judge for non-suiting the petitioner , as learned ASC for the petitioner was unable to show us any illegality in the findings of learned Judge in the impugned judgment.
So far the question of application of section 3 of the Ordinance is concerned, we are not at all persuaded to agree with the submission of learned ASC as admittedly the petitioner was inducted as tenant in the demise shop by respondent No.1 who was owner at that time and although the PTD in favour of respondent No.1 may have been cancelled but this fact alone is not sufficient to make the petitioner tenant of Evacuee Trust Property Board for that matter regarding cancellation of PTD is in dispute between respondent No.1 and Evacuee Trust Property Board and pending before the relevant forum. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed and leave refused.