' This second appeal has been filed by the persons claiming to be landlords against concurrent judgments and decree of two Courts below whereby their eviction application filed on the ground of default and damage to the property was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants filed an application for eviction before the learned Rent Controller at Jhang in the year, 1967 on the broad allegation that the respondent No, 1 was defaulter in the payment of rent since October, 1966 and the other allegation was that the respondent No, 1 had caused damage to the property by constructing bhatees. The learned Rent Controller framed as many as 12 issues. The material issue amongst them was issue No, 1 which was to the effect whether relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. The eviction application was initially filed by the appellants against Abdul Karim, respondent No, 1.
However, during the pendency of the proceedings All Muhammad, respondent No, 2 who is brother of respondent No, 1 filed an application claiming that he was the owner of the property in dispute which he had purchased from two persons namely, Ghulam Akbar and Barkhurdar witnessed by registered sale-deeds. On the concession of learned counsel for the appellants, he was allowed to be impleaded as a party to the proceedings. Thereafter he also filed his written statement and contested the proceedings.
3. At the trial, the appellants examined Mulazim Hussain, Muhammad Ali, petition-writer Abdul while Muhammad Sultan and Muhammad Hussain, appellants appeared in support of their case. The learned Rent Controller by his judgment and decree dated 30th May, 1973 decided issue Nos. 1, 3, 9 and 10 together. His findings thereon were that the rent deed Exh. P/1 as well as the eviction application were conspicuously silent about the number of the house and block number in which it was situated. Secondly, that the appellants had not adduced an iota of evidence to prove their ownership in respect of the house forming subject-matter of the petition. He was also influenced by the circumstance that the appellants in their evidence had not even touched this aspect of the matter as to wherefrom the property in question had fallen to their lot. The sole reliance on the entries in the excise and taxation register was held to be irrelevant for establishing the relationship of landlord and tenant and for this purpose reliance was placed on PLD 1967 Pesh.
380. He also took into consideration the appellants' own evidence in the form of Exhs. P/2 and P/3 for the inference that this excise and taxation record itself showed that the property to which this record pertains was not in possession of any tenant. Keeping the overall circumstances of the case into consideration, the learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the evidence on record lent support to the version of the respondents that fraud had been practised upon them. It was thus held that no relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. Issue No, 3 regarding the locus standi of the appellants was found in their favour. Issue No, 4 relating to correct valuation for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction was also decided in favour of the appellants and so was issue No, 5 relating to estoppel. Thereafter issue No, 6 relating to the fact whether vendors were necessary party to the proceedings, it was held that they were not. Then Issues Nos. 7 and 8 related to the question whether respondent No, 2 All Muhammad had purchased the premises in dispute and as such was its owner and further whether the claim of ownership of respondent No, 2 could be decided by the Rent Controller. His findings on these issues were that there could be no dispute with the proposition that the Rent Controller was not to determine the title of the parties to the property in dispute wherefrom ejectment had been sought. Issue No, 11 related to the liability of respondents to ejectment and it was held that in view of the findings on other issues, they were not so liable. The eviction application was accordingly dismissed.
4. The matter was then taken up in appeal and the same was heard by a learned Additional District Judge as appellate authority. The appeal was dismissed on 25th June, 1976. The learned Additional District Judge held that the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties. He further observed that the appeal did not appear to be competent against such a finding.
Notwithstanding this view, be examined the case on merits also. On reappraisal of entire evidence of Muhammad Hussain appellant who appeared as P. W. 2 in support of his own case showed that Ali Muhammad had not been occupying the house in dispute with the permission of landlords/appellants and it was respondent No, 1 who had put respondent No, 2 in possession of the house in dispute. It was concluded that respondent No, 2 All Muhammad was not a sub-tenant but according to the showing of the appellants themselves, he at the best was a trespasser. It was accordingly held that in such an eventuality, the Rent Tribunals would have no jurisdiction to order the eviction of such a person. For this proposition, reliance was placed on a decision reported as PLD 1973 Quetta 1. The learned Additional District Judge further held that the statements of D. W's and P. Ws. Also established that Abdul Karim respondent if at all he was a tenant under the appellants was no longer living in the house in dispute. For this, he also found support from the report of the process-server on the point.
5. This appeal has arisen in the above-noted circumstances. Learned counsel appearing in support of this second appeal was asked to point out any error of approach in the order of the learned Additional District Judge of the kind which could bring his case within the ambit of section 100 of the C. P. C. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in so far as enunciation of law was concerned, it appears to be unexceptionable. He was unable to substantiate the stand taken by the appellants claiming to be landlords which was based on a rent not allegedly executed by respondent No, 1 and which had been found to be spurious document.
6. In view of this patent position on the face of record, I do not think any case is made out for interference with this principal finding of the learned Additiohal District Judge.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants next contended that notwithstanding the fact that the appellants were unable to substantiate their connection with the property in dispute through documents or explain as to how they were for the time being entitled to receive rent to fall within the definition of a landlord, the trial Court should have given due weight to their pleas. I am unable to sustain this submission because a bare perusal of the statement of Muhammad Hussain who appeared in support of his case would show that it inspired no confidence and had been rightly relied upon by the learned Additional District Judge to be fatal to his own case. After going through the evidence of the two appellants, the learned counsel frankly stated that he found it difficult to improve upon the case of the appellants.
8. The last contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is based on the fact that the learned Additional District Judge was not right in holding that the appeal was not competent before him. According to him, the finding on this issue has prejudiced the case of the appellants. I think the apprehension of real prejudice is not well based for the simple reason that both the learned Rent Controller as well as the learned Additional District Judge have fully applied their conscious mind to all the material on the record and given fullest opportunity to the appellants to substantiate their pleas. In this case the question of jurisdiction as well as merits were decided together. The findings on merits of the case as already observed do not suffer from any infirmity nor am I called upon to enter into re-appraisal of evidence in second appeal. There is no misreading or perversity of approach shown in that regard. The view of the learned Additional District Judge on the question of maintainability of appeal regarding incompetence of an appeal on a finding by the Rent Controller regarding existence of relationship of landlord and tenant seems to be not well-based. It was not a finding of the kind which is interlocutory. This would not be the case where the matter is decided finally together with the whole matter and other issues. The objection is thus merely of academic interest because the appellate authority has exercised appellate jurisdiction and examined the case on merits. The fact remains that his decision on merits does not suffer from any infirmity of the kind which calls for interference in second appeal.
9. It is true that it is not necessary for the purposes of an eviction application for a landlord to establish that he is also owner of the property but in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case the very question that the appellants were landlords was begging for proof. Therefore in order to establish that a person is a landlord some cogent evidence has to be led to substantiate the claim. The position would be rather different when the mere claim to being a landlord is being met with registered documents of title showing that the respondent to eviction application is the real owner. The determination given by a rent tribunal in such like circumstances is thus restricted to the limited purposes of decision of that matter and thereby neither title as an owner is created nor extinguished. The parties are free to approach the civil Courts for determination of their civil rights and any finding by a rent tribunal would not stand in the way.
10. In the present case, it is of interest to note that the basis on which landlordship was being claimed by the appellants was Exh. P/1 which had been found to be a spurious document and on which reliance had not been placed by the two tribunals below in the face of other cogent and reliable evidence on record which had been believed. The excise and taxation entries were held to be irrelevant and the oral evidence of the appellants were not relied upon.
11. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length and having gone through the record with their assistance, in circumstances of this case, I do not think that the appellants have been able to make out a case for interference in second appeal under section 100 of the C. P. C. This S. A.
0. Stands dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.