JAWAD HASSAN, J. This appeal in terms of Section 24 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 (the "Act") arises out of order dated 06.09.2023 whereby the Additional Rent Controller, Cantonment proceeded to allow the ejectment petition filed by the Respondents seeking eviction of the appellant from shop Nos.1455- 1456 situated at Adam Jee Road, Rawalpindi (the "rented premises").
2. The facts forming background of this appeal are that the respondents Nos.1 and 2, claiming themselves to be landlords of the "rented premises", filed an ejectment petition under Section 17 of the "Act" seeking eviction of the Appellant on the grounds of expiry of tenancy period and default in payment of monthly rent. The ejectment petition was resisted by the appellant on multiple grounds, including denial of relationship of landlord and tenant. From the divergent pleadings of the parties, the Additional Rent Controller framed two issues and then proceeded to record evidence of both the sides. On completion of evidence, ejectment petition was accepted vide order dated 06.09.2023, hence this appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the Appellant inter alia argued that no cogent evidence was produced by the Respondents to show that they are the landlords of the "rented premises" rather the Appellant was the tenant of one Abdul Hussain Ismail Jee Mangla Trust but ejectment petition has been accepted in an illegal and unlawful manner; that the Additional Rent Controller did not properly appreciate the evidence of the parties while allowing the ejectment petition; that the impugned order is not tenable under the law.
4. Conversely, learned counsel for Respondents controverted the stance of the Appellant and stated that the impugned order has been passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Cantonment pursuant to proper appreciation of the facts and having jurisdiction to decide the lis.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. It evinces from the record that ejectment petition was filed by Respondents which was resisted by the Appellant by submitting his reply wherein he denied the relationship of landlord and tenant.
In support of averments of the petition, Shahid Hussain appeared as PW-1, Muhammad Bashir as PW-2 and Ali Jozar Moeez as PW-3 who submitted their affidavits as Exh.P-1, Exh.P-6 and Exh.P-7 respectively. They reiterated the contents of ejectment petition and stated that the "rented premises" belongs to Abdul Hussain Ismail Jee Mangla Trust and according to trust deed, the affairs of the "rented premises" regarding maintenance, repair and possession are under the management of the Respondents/Anjuman-e-Burhani, Rawalpindi. On the contrary, the Appellant appeared as RW-1 and submitted his affidavit in evidence as Exh.R1 and controverted the claim of the Respondents. A specific stance was taken by the Appellant that he was the tenant of Abdul Hussain Ismail Jee Mangla Trust and denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. The said stance of the Appellant is not correct as Ali Jozar Moeez who appeared as PW-3 is the representative of Abdul Hussain Isma il lee Mangla Trust. He has stated in cross-examination that:
7. From above statement, it is quite clear that all affairs of Abdul Hussain Jee Mangla Trust were entrusted to the Respondent/Anjuman-e-Burhani for management. From the analysis of the evidence produced by both the sides, there remains no cavil to the fact that the Respondents have duly established that they are the landlord of the "rented premises". Statement of PW-3 referred supra, had not been suggested to be incorrect nor the Appellant, having adduced his evidence later, bothered to display in his evidence any documentary record to controvert or to falsify said part of statement of PW-3. As such, in light of said mute conduct of the Appellant, there rests no room for any presumption other than to believe said statement of PW-3, as such relationship of landlord and tenant stands sufficiently established between the parties. Moreover, the Appellant has himself admitted in course of cross-examination that he has not paid the rent of the "rented premises" after 2012 and he has absolutely been unable to put forth any justification with regard to his said omission. So, default on his part also stands proved beyond any doubt.
8. It is also well entrenched principle that if landlord canvasses multiple grounds for the eviction of the tenant it is not necessary for him to establish and prove all these grounds. If the landlord is able to prove one of the grounds asserted in the ejectment petition, the tenant can be evicted by the Rent Tribunal. Reliance is placed on "Major (Reid.) Ahsan-ul-Haque v. Muhammad Ejaz" (2011 SCMR 487). The relevant extract from the said judgment is reproduce below: "11. It is on record, having been claimed and declared by the petitioner that he was employed with the Canadian Embassy as the Trade Commissioner for the last twenty years and that he was to retire on 18-8-2006. The exception taken by the two Courts that he had not alleged in the ejectment petition that the petitioner was in service and was about to retire and that it was only while under cross-examination that he had given the details of the kind of employment in which he was engaged and the time on which he was likely to retire, was misplaced. There is no legal requirement that a party must offer all the details through the pleadings as long as the relevant and necessary jurisdictional fact had been stated and asserted through such pleadings. The petitioner had submitted through his ejectment petition that he required the premises in question in good faith for his personal need and if the details thereof had come on record only through the courtesy of the cross-examiner then the opposite party deserved to thank their own counsel for it and the petitioner could not be punished for the same. As far as the record before the Court is concerned it did stand asserted on record that petitioner had been working as the Trade Commissioner in the Canadian Embassy for the last twenty years; that he was to retire on 18-8- 2006 i.e. within about a year of the filing of the ejectment petition and that he intended to establish a Trading House in the premises in question. Through whose courtesy the said material had come on record was not relevant as long as the said material was available on record. It may be added that the claim of the petitioner that he wanted to set up a Trading House was perfectly reasonable and acceptable as he had had the experience in the field having worked with a foreign mission as its Trade Commissioner for twenty long years.
12. Both the learned Courts including the High Court failed to appreciate that having so claimed about his service and about the date of retirement, the onus placed on petitioner stood more than sufficiently discharged and it was then for the respondent to show that such a claim made by the petitioner about his retirement was false. No such attempt had been made by the respondent. The impression with the High Court that once the petitioner had declared that he was to retire on 18- 8-2006 and since the proceedings had remained pending in the trial Court till April, 2009, the fact that no attempt was made by the petitioner to produce any document to establish that the petitioner did in fact retire on 18-8-2006 was an extraneous consideration especially when not even a suggestion had been made to him during the cross-examination that his said claim of his date of retirement was false."
9. In view of above, the Court is of the considered opinion that In view of above, the Court is of the considered opinion that the Appellant has failed to point out any illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order. Resultantly this appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.