' Through this writ petition the petitioner seeks a declaration to the effect that the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore dated 15th July, 1982, whereby he dismissed the appeal of the petitioner filed from an order passed by the learned Rent Controller, Lahore vide his judgment, dated 20th April, 1981, ejecting the petitioner from a shop component part of property No, SW-101-R- 91, Sanda Khurd, Lahore is without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No, 1 filed an ejectment petition against the petitioner who was running the business of Hair Dressing and Hamam in the shop in dispute, on the grounds of default in payment of rent ; damage to the property ; permanent nuisance and requirement of the premises for the use of her eldest son in good faith.
3. The petitioner resisted the application and denied his relationship as tenant of respondent No, 1 and took up the position that he was a tenant under Ch. Bashir Ahmad Bajwa, the husband of respondent No,
1. He paid regularly the rent to Ch. Bashir Ahmad Bajwa, and then at his direction to Arshad Ali Sindhu from November, 1976 till February, 1978 and onwards to Mst. Surraya Jabeen, a daughter of Ch. Bashir Ahmad Bajwa.
4. On the pleadings of the parties the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues
(1) Whether there exists any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties ? 0. P. P.
(2) Relief.
' Both the parties adduced their respective evidence.
5. The learned Rent Controller apart from the oral evidence adduced by respondent No, 1 relied upon a money order for Rs, 240 towards the existence of the relation in issue sent by the petitioner to respondent No, 1 as rent for two months. The money order was not received by respondent No, 1 because according to her the petitioner by that time had become a defaulter in a larger sum. He rejected the plea raised by the petitioner that he had addressed the money order to respondent No, 1 for her to pass the amount sent as rent to Mst. Surraya Jabeen, her daughter, who was away to Chishtian in those days, to which effect the money order coupon Exh. R/1 bearing an endorsement that the money so sent was to given to Mst. Surraya Jabeen was produced to which no weight was attached by the learned Rent Controller as that was regarded as an addition made subsequently because the learned Rent Controller was of the opinion that, that could not be possible because the mother and daughter were at daggers drawn towards each other and involved in heavy litigation. The learned Rent Controller also observed that the ownership of respondent No, 1 stood established in view of the gift deed. As to the execution of the rent note between respondent No, l's husband and the petitioner it was observed that the evidence offered in support thereof was shaky. The rent receipts purported to have been issued by Mst. Surraya Jabeen were regarded as forged. In the result it was found that the petitioner was a tenant under respondent No, 1 on the strength of the money order as a solid proof of the tenancy. The default stood proved without any further inquiry.
6. On appeal by the petitioner whereat the petitioner had been allowed to adduce additional evidence the learned Additional District Judge observed that the evidence so adduced did not advance the case of the petitioner. Before him it was maintained by the petitioner that Ch. Bashir Ahmad Bajwa was the owner/landlord while respondent No, 1 claimed herself as the owner/landlady on the basis of the gift deed executed in her favour by Muhammad Shafi Bajwa who had allegedly purchased the property through a registered sale-deed from one Syed Sajjad Haider. The learned Additional District Judge after discussing various items in the evidence did not believe that the writing on the coupon of the money order that the amount was to be passed to Mst. Surraya Jabeen existed initially. According to him the only message written on the coupon was-the rent for the months of October and November, 1979 was being sent. He regarded the money order as sufficient to prove that the petitioner had submitted the rent to Mst. Ghulam Sughra respondent No, 1 taking her as the landlady. As to the justification for sending the money order otherwise he like the learned Rent Controller observed that the rent for the month of October, 1979 had already been paid on 2nd October, 1979 to Mst. Surraya Jabeen. Even the rent for the month of November, 1979 had already been paid on 1st November, 1979 through R. W. 4/12, that only meant that there was no occasion of sending any money order for payment of rent for the months of October and November, 1979 to Mst. Surraya Jabeen on 22nd November, 1979 because already that amount had been paid to Mst. Surraya Jabeen prior to that date vide Exh. R. W. 4/11 and Exh. R.
W. 4/12. He was further of the opinion that the petitioner had sent the money order to Mst. Ghulam Sughra with the purpose to pay the rent to her for the months of October and November, 1979 and when the said landlady refused to accept the payment because of that being deficient as to rent and not including the arrears of rent the petitioner contacted Mst. Surraya Jabeen who had filed a suit for the administration of the property against Mst. Ghulam Sughra and others and attorned to her as his landlady. As to the arrears of rent he regarded the receipts executed by Mst. Surraya Jabeen as forged assigning thereto various reasons. The learned Additional District Judge found that the factum of tenancy had however, been proved by the oral as well as documentary evidence produced by Mst. Ghulam Sughra respondent No,
1. Regarding R. W. 3 from WAPDA he observed that he had proved that at the time of giving electric connection no objection certificate had been given by Ch. Bashir Ahmad Bajwa but according to the learned Additional District Judge that did not prove that Ch. Bashir Ahmad Bajwa was in fact the landlord. He was of the opinion that being the husband of the landlady he could have signed that. He resultantly upheld the findings of the learned Rent Controller as to issue No, 1 and dismissed the appeal.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has taken an exception to the appreciation of the evidence conducted by the learned Additional District Judge. When the learned counsel has been reminded that on a question of fact the conclusion drawn by the learned Additional District Judge after discussing the evidence cannot be disturbed in the exercise of the Constitutional jurisdiction by this Court nor this Court can afford toll review the evidence so as to come to its own conclusion even if it is minded to differ therewith, then the learned counsel has submitted that the learned Additional District Judge has erred in observing that only two documents (additional evidence No, 1 and additional evidence 2) were produced as the additional evidence, the petitioner in fact in addition thereto also produced Annexure 'A' as the additional evidence as indicated in a copy of the application (Annexure 'S') made in that behalf. According to the learned counsel this is a receipt in the name of the petitioner for the security of Rs, 60 which was deposited by him in the National Bank of Pakistan in order to get the connection of water. This is dated 28th June, 1974. This document goes to the very root of the matter since it militates against the position of respondent No, 1 that the petitioner was her tenant who allegedly got the property in gift from one Muhammad Shafi Bajwa in November, 1974. This document has been added in handwriting to the, documents intended to be produced in the typed application and the same application had been allowed by the learned Additional District Judge as unopposed. The order allowing the application (Annexure 'S') has not been placed by the petitioner on the file. However, the learned Additional District Judge has distinctly mentioned in his judgment that photo copies of those documents had been placed on the file and the certified copies were then produced before him. Those certified copies were exhibited as additional evidence I and additional evidence 2. He has also observed that those were the only two documents which were produced as additional evidence. If Annexure 'A' was not exhibited then it means that it was not produced before him. Anyhow the petitioner should have insisted for exhibiting of the same before the learned Additional District Judge at that time. Now at this distance of time be cannot be allowed to raise this point and as it is not exhibited, therefore, nothing can be said about it as to its impact on the claim of respondent No, 1.
8. Next the learned counsel has submitted that the learned Additional District Judge has not taken into consideration an agreement with Messrs Sui Nothern Gas Pipelines Ltd. Exh. R. W. 5/1 and no objection certificate Exh. R. W. 5/2 attached therewith.
9. This agreement (Exh. R. W. 5/1) was entered into by the petitioner with Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Ltd. To get the connection of sui gas in his name to run up a Hamam regarding which Ch. Bashir Ahmad Bajwa signed the No-Objection Certificate as landlord as printed in the agreement form.
Both these document bear 14th December, 1974 as the date. Mst. Surraya Jabeen as R. W. In her statement maintained that this property was gifted to her mother by her father but at the same time she admitted in the cross-examination that before it was gifted to her mother Muhammad Shafi Bajwa was the owner of the property who was her uncle.
' As to the importance of both the documents the observation made by the learned Additional District Judge as to No-Objection Certificate in respect with an electric connection, that did not prove that Ch. Bashir Ahmad Bajwa was in fact the landlord, being the husband of the lady be could have signed, holds true even in respect with these two documents.
' He has further submitted that in any case a notice under section 13-A of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance was necessary after respondent No, 1 gained the property by way of gift. Since both the Tribunals have relied upon the money order as acknowledgment by the petitioner himself of respondent No, I as the landlady by sending the rent for two months, therefore, no notice under section 13-A was required. As to the coupon on which there was allegedly a writing that the amount was to be passed to Mst. Surraya Jabeen, both the Tribunals could come to any conclusion either way within the exercise of their jurisdiction.
10. The last emphasis of the learned counsel is on an agreement Exh. R/2 (Annexure 'D'). This agreement purportedly executed by Ch. Bashir Ahmad Bajwa on 30th March, 1976 is to the effect that Ch. Bashir Ahmad Bajwa and his successors will be liable to pay the cost of setting up the Barber Shop and the Hamam etc., amounting up to Rs, 15,000 at the time of the vacation of the shop to the petitioner. This agreement if at all gives any footing to the petitioner then being an independently sueable cause has no impact upon the ejectment order. The submission of the learned counsel for respondent No, 1, on the other hand has its weight that none of the documents shows that Ch. Bashir Ahmad Bajwa was the owner of the property and as such a landlord even if these documents are stretched to the extreme. No ground has been made out so as to say that the orders of both the Tribunals are without lawful authority.
11. Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed. In the circumstances there is no order as to costs.