Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner , Capt. (Retd.) George Inayat, impugns the judgment and decree dated 18.9.2018 passed by the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Islamabad, whereby Respondent No. 2's appear against the order and decree dated 20.01.2018 passed by the Court of the learned Rent Controller , Islamabad was allowed. Vide the said order and decree dated 20.01.2018, the learned Rent Controller had dismissed Respondent No. 2's petition under Section 17 of the Islamabad Rent Restrictions Ordinance, 2001 ("IRRO ") seeking the petitioner's eviction from House No. 21, 100 Quarters, Kachi Abadi, Sector F-6/2, Islamabad ("the rented premises ").
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the property from which the petitioner's eviction was sought is owned by the Capital Development Authority ("C.D.A .") and that the petitioner is not in possession of any land owned by Respondent No. 2; that there is no written lease agreement between the petitioner and Respondent No. 2 and that the petitioner has filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction before the learned Civil Court at Islamabad praying for a declaration to the effect that the petitioner is in lawful possession of the rented premises.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for the writ petition to be allowed in terms of the relief sought therein.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the private respondents submitted that on 7.9.2020, the petitioner had undertaken to vacate the rented premises till the next date of hearing (i.e. 08.10.2020) and not to cause any damage to the rented premises; and that the petitioner has breached his undertaking before the learned Executing Court and is still in possession of the rented premises.
4. Learned counsel for the private respondents further submitted that since the suit for declaration and permanent injunction instituted by the petitioner has not been decreed as yet by the learned Civil Court, this Court ought to dismiss the instant petition; and that the concurrent judgments passed by the learned Courts below do not suffer from any legal and jurisdictional infirmity . Learned counsel for the private respondents prayed for the writ petition to be dismissed.
5. I have heard the contentions of the learned counsel for the contesting parties and have perused the record with their able assistance.
6. It is not disputed that on 07.09.2020, the petitioner gave a statement on oath before the learned Executing Court that the rented premises would be vacated within a period of 30 days. and that he would deposit the keys of the rented premises in the Court on the next date of hearing. The petitioner had also given a statement that he would not cause any damage to the rented premises. The learned Executing Court after recording the statement of the petitioner adjourned the matter to 08.10.2020 so that the keys were deposited in the Court.
7. It is an admitted position that the petitioner has not stood by the statement that he made on oath before the learned Executing Court. This inequitable conduct of the petitioner is enough to deny him relief in the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner brought on record a copy of the suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the petitioner before the learned Civil Court against Respondent No. 2. In the said suit, the petitioner has prayed for a declaration to the effect that he is in lawful possession of the rented premises. The petitioner has also sought an injunction to restrain the defendants in the said suit from interfering in his possession over the rented premises.
9. I am of the view that the eviction or execution proceedings before the learned Rent Controller/executing Court should not, in any manner , be hampered by the mere pendency of a civil suit for declaration filed by the party in possession of the rented premises. Whether or not the petitioner is entitled to a decree in his favour is for the learned civil Court to determine. Presently , there is no decree with respect to the ownership or lawful possession of the rented premises in the petitioner's favour . It is trite law that a person cannot remain in occupation of rented premises simply because he asserts to be the owner or in lawful possession of the rented premises and has instituted a suit for declaration in this regard. There is a catena of case law in support of the proposition that ejectntent proceedings could not be stayed or stalled on the plea that tenants in possession had filed a civil suit.
Reference in this regard may be, made to the following case law:-
(i) In the case of Iqbal vs. Rabia Bibi, reported as PLD 1991 SC 242, it has been held at page 245 of the report as follows:- "Be that as it may, in some recent judgments this court has taken the view that in cases like the present one, where the sale agreement or any other transaction relied upon by a tenant is seriously and bona fide disputed by the landlord, the appellant/tenant cannot be allowed to retain the possession during the litigation where he continues to deny the ownership of the landlord who had inducted him as a tenant, without any condition and/or reservation. It has been ruled that in such cases althoug h the tenant has a right to adduce evidence and take a short time for that purpose to remain in occupation despite having set up a, hostile title which is denied by the landlord, but on the well-known bar of estoppel in this behalf, he (the tenant) cannot be permitted to remain in occupation and right the litigation for long time--even for decades. In this case it is more than a decade that the appellants have been able to keep the possession on a claim which the landlord asserts is false. Accordingly , as held in those cases in fairness to both sides, while the tenant is at liberty to prosecute the litigation, wherein he should try to establish his claim but it should not be at the cost of landlord/owner . It should be at the cost of himself and he must vacate-- though of course he would be entitled to an easy and free entry as soon as he finally succeeds in establishing his title against his own landlord. See Makhan Bano v. Haji Abdul Ghani (PLD 1984 Supreme Court 17), Allah Yar and others v . Additional District Judge and others (1984 SCMR v . Mufti Abdul Ghani 1985 SC1)."
(ii) In the case of Jumma Khan vs. Zarin Khan reported as PLD 1999 SC 1101, the relationship of landlord and tenant was denied by the tenant on the ground that the landlord had executed an agreement to sell the rented premises to the tenant and that a substan tial amount had been paid to the landlor d and that a civil suit for specific performance was pending adjudication against the landlord. The landlord had unequivocally refuted the execution of any agreement for sale. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the tenant's petition in the following terms: "7. On the basis of dictum laid in aforequoted reports we unhesitatingly hold that petitioner cannot legitimately resist maintainability of ejectment proceedings pending against him on the ground of sale-agreement. Suffice it to observe that genuineness or otherwise of such agreement and its consequen tial effort will be independently determined by the Civil Court. However , in the instant case we are satisfied that issue regarding relationship of tenancy and personal bona fide require ment of respondent-landlord has been correctly decided by the Courts below . There does not appear any material defect or legal infirmity with regard to conclusions drawn in the impugned judgments. Accordingly the petition having no merit is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused."
(iii) In case of Barkat Masih vs. Wanzoor Ahmad reported as 2006 SCMR 1068 , it was held that if a tenant denies the relationship of the landlord and tenant he should first vacate the premises in his possession and then contest his proprietary rights.
(iv) In the case of Abdul Rasheed vs. Maqbool Ahmed reported as 2011 SCMR 320, the petitioner/tenant had denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between parties. The petitioner had claimed that he had purchased demised premises subsequently through a Sale agreement. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition by holding as follows: "5. ... It is settled law that where in a case filed for eviction of the tenant by the landlord, the former takes up a position that he has purchased the property and hence is no more a tenant then he has to vacate the property and file a suit for specific performance of the sale agreement whereafter he would be given easy access to the premises in case he prevails. In this regard reference can be made to Shameem Akhtar v. Muhammad Rashi d (PLD 1989 SC 575), Mst Azeemun Nisar Begum v. Mst. Rabia Bibi (PLD 1991 SC 242), Muhammad Rafique v.
Messrs Habib Bank Ltd. (1994 SCMR 1012 ) and. Mst. Bor Bibi v. Abdul Qadir (1996 SCMR 877). In so far as determination of the relationship of landlo rd and tenant is concerned, such enquiry by the Rent Controller is of a summary nature. Undoubtedly the premises were taken by the petitioner on rent from the respondent and according to the former he later on purchased the same which was denied by the latter . Consequently , the relationship in so far as the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller is concerned stood established because per settled law the question of title to the property could never be decided by the Rent Controller ."
(v) In the case of Gohar Ali Shah vs. Shahzada Alam reported as 2000 MLD 82, the appellant was seeking to avoid eviction from the rented premises by claiming that he had purchased the rented premises. The Hon'ble High Court of Sindh struck off the tenant's defence and directed him to vacate the premises subject to refund by the landlord of the amount of consideration paid towards the price of the premises in question to the tenant after adjustment of rent till the delivery of possession. Furthermore, it was held as follows: "Mere agreement to sale would not absolve the appellant to pay rent only because he was proposed purchaser of the premises when there has been no term that appellant would not pay rent on this executing such agreement of sale when such agreement of sale would not create any' right title or interest in or over the property in favour of appellant the proposed purchaser until and unless the said relationship of landlord or tenant is determined by an agreement."
(vi) In the case of Muhammad Akmal vs. Faisal Saeed Mirza reported as 2004 CLC 862 the tenant had denied the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties alleging that predecessor-in-interest of the landlord had entered into agreement to sell the premises in question in favour of the tenant. The tenant had also stated that he had filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell. The said assertions of the tenant did not find favour with the Hon'ble Lahore High Court and in paragraph 8 of the said report, it was held as follows: "8. ...It may be pointed out here that learned Rent Controller has not to decide the fact of sale and purchase allegedly made between the appellant and predecessor -in-interest of the respond ents. The Civil Court, seized of the matter , is competent to decide such dispute and if appellant turns successful in that suit hewould have the chance for the recovery of possession, in -case of his ejectment. Till the decision of the civil suit proceedings of this case (ejectment petition) cannot be stayed or stalled as held in Iqbal and 6 others v. Mst Rabia Bibi and another PLD 1991 SC 242. The intention of suit for specific performance of contract cannot furnish a ground to the appellant to get the proceedings before the Rent Controller stayed as held in Muhammad Amjad v. Mst. Rehana Kausar 2001 YLR939."
(vii) In the case of Muhammad Parvez vs. Additional Rent 'Controller , Lahore reported as 2013 YLR 1881 , an applicant, claiming to be the purchaser of the rented premises, had filed an application under Order I, Rule 10 C.P.C. for impleadment in the eviction petition before the Rent Controller . The landlord's writ petition against the order of the Rent Controller allowing the application for impleadment was allowed by the Hon'ble Lahore High Court, holding as follows: "6. ...By applying above said principles in the instant case the inescapable conclusion is that a tenant remains a tenant, he cannot prolong his occupation by exercising his right of being subsequent purchaser unless so held by the Court of competent jurisdiction. The reasons behind is that he has no status to justify his possession and if he denies the relationship of landlord and tenant he will be known to be an illegal occupant The rent proceedings are between the land owner and tenant and entry or interference by the third party is to be jealously guarded. In this view of the matter , the impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is allowed, Resultantly application under Order 1 Rule 10, C.P .C. filed by respondents Nos.2 and 3 is dismissed."
(viii) In the case of Kefhat Hamidee vs. Abdul Aziz reported as 2013 YLR 1898 , it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Sindh that unless and until a registered sale deed existed between the parties, the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties, the tenant could not get the benefit of a 'sale agreement' to avoid payment of rent. The eviction of the tenant from the rented premises was held to be justified.
(ix) In the case of Muhammad Rafique vs. Farida Khan (2016 CLC 1451 ), I have had the occasion to hold as follows: "it has become commonplace for unscrupulous tenants/litigants to avoid eviction proceedings by contending that the rented premises had been sold to them. Unless and until the petitioner was able to establish his claim for specific performance on the basis of the alleged sale agreement through a judgment (not an interim order) in his favour passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction, Respondent No 1 would continue to enjoy the status of being the owner and landlord of the rented premises. Pendency of a civil suit does not give a license to the tenant to remain in occupation of the rented premises. There is a catena of case law in support of the proposition that ejectment proceedings could not be stayed or stalled on the plea that tenants in possession were holding an agreement to sell. Mere pendency of a suit for declaration or specific performance of an agreement is no ground to avoid eviction of tenants, who claim to have purchased the rented premises."
10. The irony of the situation is that the eviction petition seeking the petitioner's eviction from the rented premises was instituted as far back as 22.05.2014 and despite the eviction order passed by the learned appellate Court on 18.09.2018, the petitioner is still in occupation of the rented premises. This Court had not suspended the operation of the said order dated 18.09.2018. Therefore, the learned executing Court must proceed with the execution proceedings expeditiously .
11. In view of the foregoing, I do not find any jurisdictional infirmity in the order dated 18.09.2018 passed by the learned Appellate Court. Consequently , this petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed with no order as to costs.