FIAZ AHMAD ANJUM JANDRAN, J. Through instant writ petition, petitioner impugns orders dated 19.10.2020, 24.10.2020 and ex-parte judgment and decree dated 17.04.2019 passed by learn ed respondents 2 & 3 whereby ejectment petition filed by the respondent No. 1 was accepted while application for setting aside said ex-parte judgment and decree was dismissed and appeal met the same fate being time barred .
2. Essential and relevant facts for adjudication of instant writ petition are that the respondent No. 1 filed ejectment petition against the petitioner wherein the latter was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 06.09.2018. The respondent No. 1 appeared as AW-1 and got examined one Muhammad Yameen as AW-2 while in documentary evidence, tendered copy of suit along with judgment Ex. A-3. The learned Rent Controller after hearing arguments, accepted the ejectment petition vide judgment dated 17.04.2019. The petitioner filed application for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree, which was dismissed vide order dated 19.10.2020. He assailed both the said orders in appeal but it was dismissed vide order dated 24.10.2020. Hence, instant writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the judgment of eviction has been passed in absence of the petitioner; that he was dispossessed forcefully and that the respondent No. 1 has already alienated the subject premises, therefore, impugned judgment/orders are liable to be set aside.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 argued that pursuant to execution proceedings, possession of the subject premises have since been handed over to respondent No. 1; that the objection petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed for non-prosecution and that no case for interference in concurrent observations is made out, therefore, petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
6. Record reveals that respondent No. 1 filed the ejectment petition on the grounds of non-extension of oral agreement, rent default and personal bonafide need . Though the petitioner claims to have purchased the subject premises yet the fact remains that mere claim without any title document cannot be made basis to rebut relationship of landlord and tenant particularly when the petitioner himself admitted to have made payments of rent to the respondent No. 1 as reveals through ground "f" of instant writ petition.
7. Another important aspect of the matter is that possession of the subject premises has since been handed over to respondent No. 1 in execution proceedings, which makes the instant writ petition redundant. It also gleans out of record that the conduct of the petitioner is not aboveboard as initially he did not contest the ejectment petition and when law followed its course, emerged with an application for setting aside of ex-parte judgment and decree wherein he was given due opportunity of hearing to present his case but remained unsuccessful. Not only this but his appeal was also held to be time barred and without any application for condonation of delay for which no plausible explanation and justification has since put-forth, not even today .
8. It is also noticed that the objection petition filed by the petitioner in execution petition was dismissed for non- prosecution, restoration of which, as asserted, has been sought through an application, which is still pending.
9. The above events, explicitly , explores that the petitioner has failed to make out a case warranting interference in the impugned orders and judgment while exercising constitutional jurisdiction which is a discretionary relief and meant to carve injustice, illegality and transgression of authority . None of the elements have even been alleged.
Consequently , instant writ petition fails and accordingly dismissed .