' This writ petition arises out of order, dated 7-10-1984 of the learned Rent Controller, Lahore whereby he stayed ejectment proceedings pending against the contesting respondents sine die till the disposal of a suit for specific performance, instituted by Mst. Haseena Begum, one of the respondents.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the learned Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to stay ejectment proceedings against respondents Nos. 2 to 9 merely because a suit for specific performance of an agreement allegedly executed between the original owner and Mst.
Haseena Begum was pending decision in the Civil Court. It was submitted that there is no clause in the aforesaid agreement exempting the respondents from payment of rent to the owner-landlord, as such, she is under legal obligation to pay rent and failure whereof would render her liable to ejectment. He relied on Haji Jan Muhammad v. Ghulam Ghaus and 2 others 1976 SCM R 141 in support of his submission.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the contrary, submitted that the original owner had in fact agreed to sell the disputed property in favour of the respondent No. 2 on 2-11-1980 long before 30-6-1982 when the disputed property was sold in favour of the petitioners. It was stated that the order passed by the learned Rent Controller staying ejectment proceedings during the pendency of the suit for specific performance, instituted by the respondents was just and legal.
4. I have considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and find that mere pendency of the suit for specific performance of an agreement does not clothe the learned Rent Controller with jurisdiction to stay the ejectment proceedings sine die. The perusal of the agreement, dated 2-11-1980 shows that there was no stipulation exempting the vendee from payment of rent of the disputed property to the vendor-landlord. The respondents, therefore, continued to occupy the disputed property in the same capacity, in which they were in its occupation prior to the execution of the agreement, dated 2-11-1980 and obliged to pay rent and failure whereof entailed the consequence of their ejectment.
5. In the result, the impugned order of the learned Rent Controller having been passed without jurisdiction is declared to be of no legal effect. The learned Rent Controller shall resume proceedings in the matter in accordance with law.
6. There shall be no order as to costs.