SAFDAR SALEEM SHAHID, J.---Through the instant constitutional petition, the petitioners have called into question the legality of the judgment dated 18.04.2017 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore whereby appeal filed by the respondents was accepted.
2. Brief facts of the case as narrated through instant writ petition are that on 18.04 .2013 predecessor of petitioners Nos.(i) to (v) during his life time filed an application under section 15 of The Punjab Rented Premises, Act, 2009, whereby sought ejectment of respondents qua the fact that his father namely Inayat Ullah was owner of quarters/property measuring 7-marlas bearing No.SEVI-22S-8/1 situated at Haveli Khalifa Khair Din Yasrub Street No.22, Garhi Shahu, Lahore, who purchased the same vide sale deed dated 11.03.1986. After his death, petitioner along with Abdul Rasheed, Tanveer Ahmad, Rasheeda Bano and Rahila Bano became lawful owners/legal heirs.
Where-after , out of total property two quarters measuring 3-Marlas and 170 sq. ft. were sold out by the aforesaid all legal heirs whereas to the extent of remaining 3-Marlas 55 sq. ft. a surrender deed dated 19.09.2007 was executed by other shareholders in his favour . The property was rented out to respondents since long when rate of rent was quite low which was enhanced gradually . In November , 2011, it was orally settled between the parties that rate of rent shall be Rs.3000/- per month and tenancy was for next two years and was to be expired on November , 2013.
In the months of March and April, 2013, respondents refused to pay rent and they defaulted. On this, petitioners filed the ejectment petition on 04.06.2015. Respondents filed leave to contest where many preliminary objections were raised. The version of the respondents was that ejectment was not maintainable and it has been filed with mala fide intention and ulterior motive. There is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was objected that in the light of law laid down in The Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, the ejectment petition is not maintainable and as per latest law only written tenancies can be considered for adjudication. It was also contended that respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are in possession of the suit property as their grant father namely Umar Din and grand-mother occupied the land underneath which belongs to no one but is a Shamlat Deh which comes within the ambit of Lal Lakeer owned by the Government and constructed the house in quest ion. The court while entertaining the rent petition on 18.04.2013 passed the order under The Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, as per section 9(b) of the Act and in obedience of the order , 10% of the annual value of rent was to be deposited by the landlord/petitioners. Leave to appeal was allowed by the Court. Since there was denial regarding relationship of landlord and tenant the following one issue was framed by Special Judge (Rent) Lahore.
1. Whether there exists the relationship of landlord and the tenant between the parties? OP (parties).
2. Relief.
Thereafter , parties produced their evidence. Learned Special Judge (Rent) Laho re allowed the rent petition and issue was decided in favour of the petitioners. that relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioners and respondents stands proved and respondents were directed to hand over possession of the premises to the landlord within 30 days. Against the said judgment dated 29.10.2016, aggrieved party filed appeal before learned District Judge, Lahore who after hearing the parties accepted the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment dated 29.10.2016 and also in result of that ejectment petition was dismissed. The court held that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and present petitioners failed to establish the said relationship.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, has not properly analyzed the evidence produced by the petitioners; relevant documents of owners hip have been produced by the petitioners; that the petitioners are owners of the property and the premises was given on rent by the petitioners to the respondents; oral as well as documentary evidence supports the version of the petitioners. Learned counsel has referred the case law reported as 'Ahmad Ali alias Ali Ahmad v. Nasar lid Din and another' (PLD 2009 SC 453), 'Shafaq Aqeel v. Shafqat Ali Amjad 4 and others (2015 MLD 987), 'Zafar Iqbal v. Dilshad Ahmad and another' (2015 YLR 1092 ). Further referred the case law reported as 'Shaukat All v. Sheikh Muhammad Bashir through L.Rs. and another' (2017 CLC 158) that mere denial from relationship of landlord and tenant is not sufficient but denying from this relationsh ip should be proved with reliable evidence. Further referred 'Shamas ud Din v. Additional District Judge and others' (2016 CLC Note 81), 'Sarfraz v. Mukhtar Ahmed and others'
(2016 CLC Note 48), 'Muhammad Shoaib v. Jamila Kahtoon and 4 others' (2015 YLR 1213 ), 'Ameer Baksh through L.Rs. and others v. Mst. Bakhto and others' (2017 CLC Note 116), 'Muhammad Nawaz alias Nawaza and others v. Member Judicial Board of Revenue and others' (2014 SCMR 914) and argued that petitioners have proved the case through reliable evidence and all the related documents are available on the record to establish the ownership of the petitioners ; while passing impugned judgment learn ed Additional District Judge has committed severe error while holding that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioners and respondents.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, resisted that evidence of the petitioners was sufficient to prove that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioners and respondents; evidence of AW.1 is sufficient to prove this fact; AW.1 has no knowledge of anything and his all informations are based on hearsay evidence; he never mentioned that premises was given on rent and by whom and even no witness had ever stated about receiving of rent at any time; the petitioners were not the owners of the land; the land belonging to the petitioners was some other portion and the portion of land in question does not belong to the petitioners as per record.
5. Arguments heard. Record Perusal.
6. In rent cases where the denial of relationship of landlord and tenant is specifically agitated the question before the court is only to see the status of the parties. It is obligatory upon a person claim ing himself to be landlord of the premises to establish through evidence that the other person is occupying the premises in the capacity of a tenant and non other and such tenant is also paying him rent against the tenancy of the demised premises, otherwise he would be deemed to have failed in estab lishing his claim and will not be entitled to seek eviction of such a tenant under The Punjab Urban Rented Premises Act, 2009. In the case of Yasin Khan v. Additional District No. VII, District Judge W est Islamabad and 2 others (2019 YLR 2894 ), it was held as follows: "15. The petitioner failed to bring on record any evidence to prove that respondent No.3 had paid rent to him at any stage. Since it was the petitioner who had invoked the jurisdiction of the learned Rent Controller , it was obligatory upon him to have proved the existence as to the factum of the relationship of landlord and tenant between himself and respondent No.3. The petitioner neither produced any independent witness, nor produced any rent receipts to show that such a relationship existed between the petitioner and respondent No.3. Since an eviction order can only be passed by the Rent Controller against a tenant or a person who has been put in possessions of the rented premises by the tenant, it is essential for the eviction petitioner to prove that the person whose eviction is sought, is in occupation of the premises in his capacity as a tenant and none other. There are other remedies available under the law to the owner of immovable property to have an unlawful occupant or a trespasser, who is not a tenant evicted from such property."
In order to correctly understand the meaning of both the terms and to apply the same to the facts of the case in hand, the definition clause of Section 2 of the Act is of great relevant, which provides definition of both the terms.
For the purposes of ease of reference, the same are reproduced as follows:
(d) "landlord" means the owner of a prem ises and includes a person for the time being entitled or authorized to receive rent in respect of the premises.
(1) "tenant" means a person who undertakes or is bound to pay rent as consideration for the occupation of a premises by him or by any other person on his behalf and includes"
Perusal of both the terms clearly depicts the receiving of rent and payment of rent are sine qua non for establishing the relationship of tenancy between the parties and in a case where the relationship itself is under question then, it becomes further necessary and imperative to prove the existence of relationsh ip between the parties through evidence and for the very purpose the factum of payment of rent by the tenant to landlord is pivotal to prove or disprove the claim of tenancy and relief sought. In the case of Muhammad Ibrahim v. Niaz Muhammad (2016 CLC 609 ), same principle was laid down as under: "It is an established principle that once a tenant is always a tenant, but in the described circumstances the initial burden was on the respondent (applicant ) to establish his status either as of owner or of landlord of the house in question, to enable him to seek for eviction of the appellant. There was no document which could describe his (respondent's) status as of owner of the house in question. There was even no specific oral evidence stating payment of rent to the respondent by the appellant, or any other act on part of the appellant which determined his status as of tenant of the respondent.
Learned Special Judge (Rent) is not concerned with the ownership of the premises in question. This ejectment petition was filed under The Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, and even its all provisions are very specific and clear . The violence of these provisions is not curable for any side. Petitioners have admitted that they filed' the ejectment petition under The Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, on the basis of oral agreement for which there is no knowledge to the petitioners that when it was settled between their predecessor in interest and respondent's predecessor in interest. Even time and year is not specifically known to the petitioners. Even there is no such evidence which can be believed that respondents have paid rent to the petitioners at any time.
7. Payment of rent, in hand kind, is sine qua non for the relationship of landlord and tenant. The petitioner has failed to bring on record any evidence to prove that respondent started payment rent thereafter , therefore, both the FAOs were allowed. Reliance is placed on the case of Mst. Nasira Afridi v. Muhammad Akbar (2015 MLD 171).
In case of denial of relationship of tenancy by the tenant and particularly when the landlord himself remained unsuccessful to bring on record convincing evidence to the contrary , then the petitioner cannot be termed as tenant merely on the ground that ejectment petition was filed against him under the rent laws. In the case of Ameena Haq v. Rab Nawaz Khan and 2 others (2018 CLC Note 92), the same principle was iterated by the Court while observing as under:- "There is no cavil with the proposition that tenant is always a tenant but when a person did not enter the premises in the capacity of tenant he cannot be dubbed as such just due to filing of ejectment petition and that too in absence of any solid proof "
The petitioners were not able to justify that why after the commencement of the Act, they could not ask the respondents for written agreement of tenancy . Learned Additional District Judge, has rightly relied on the case law reported as "Muhammad Rashid Hussain Shamsi v. Syed Hameed ud Din and another" (2014 CLC 1367 ).
The documents tendered by the respondents in the evidence supports their version that respondents were residing in the house since long. In no way, the petitioners succeeded to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant between them and respondents regarding the disputed premises. The forum of learned Special Judge (Rent) is not for the purpose to sort out the ownership of any party . The question involved in this proposition was whether relationship of tenant and landlord exit between the parties. The petitioners were unable to prove the same through any consistent and reliable evidence. One other legal aspect of the case is that denial of the respondents regarding relation of tenant and land lord is based on the fact that this piece of land is not the same, which has been claimed through the papers by the petitioners rather it is some other piece of land, which is part of Shamlat-Dett. The site plan mentioned in the petition were not got exhibited by the petitioners. Property number mentioned in the documentary evidence Exh.A-5 to Exh.A-7 of AW.1 is 8/1 while the property number mentioned 'in the evidence of respondents is 8. Now, this is not forum to ascertain the description of property/'th e ownership'. The forum of Rent Tribunal is only to see the relationship of tenant and landlord, under The Punjab Rent Premises Act, 2009. If these are not established, then certainly the claiming party has the other legal forum to agitate his claim. The purpose of Special law is to regularize the affairs of tenant and, land lord. Learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, has rightly decided the appeal filed by the respondents. There is no substance in the writ petition, therefore, same stands dismissed. No order as to costs.