' This constitutional petition has arisen out of the ejectment petition filed in 1970 by Mian Muhammad Aslam, respondent against the petitioners seeking their eviction from the house No,936-B, Peoples Colony, Faisalabad on the grounds of default in payment of rent for the period commencing from August, 1967 to the date of filing of the petition, subletting and causing damage to the property. The petitioners contested this petition by asserting that Nazir Ahmad, petitioner No, 1 had occupied the suit property as perspective purchaser on the basis of an agreement to sell and as such the relationship of landlord and tenant had ceased to exist. This petition was dismissed by the then Rent Controller, vide order, dated 19-1-1974. On appeal the order dismissing the ejectment petition was reversed. The parties litigated the matter up to the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The relevant observations of the Supreme Court made in the order, dated 29-9-1980 read as under:- "As regards the protection of section 53-A of the Act, we are satisfied that the document does not fulfill the conditions prescribed by law for benefit of the occupant of a property. Admittedly, it is not signed by the respondent who was supposed to be selling the property. The two receipts do not show the terms of the agreement. In any case, the receipts are not in any manner, of assistance to the petitioners in showing that the relationship between the parties earlier existing had suffered a change on account of these receipts."
' With the aforesaid findings and observations the finding that relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties and the order remanding the ejectment petition for fresh trial was upheld. It may be added that the agreement to sell set up by the petitioners was, dated 20th November, 1967 and the two receipts relied upon by the petitioners evidenced the payment of Rs,10,000 to Muhammad Aslam respondent by Nazir Ahmad petitioner. The respondent in remand proceedings submitted an application seeking forthwith ejectment of the petitioners on the basis of the rule laid down in Nisar Ahmad v. Nazar Muhammad PLD 1974 Lah.
489. The learned Rent Controller, however, passed an order under section 13(6) of the Act and framed necessary issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties. It may be also mentioned that it appears that Mian Muhammad Aslam respondent had obtained from the House Building Finance Corporation a loan for the recovery of which the Corporation filed a suit against Muhammad Aslam respondent. In this suit Nazir Ahmad petitioner No,1 made an application for being impleaded as a party. He also offered to pay Rs,25,000 to the House Building Finance Corporation on the plea that he had an interest in the property and if that interest as ostensible purchaser is not recognized then the said amount may be treated as advance rent and be deducted accordingly. On the other hand if he was recognized as a purchaser of the property the sum of Rs,25,000 be adjusted against the sale price of the property in question. The Court allowed the petitioner No,1 to deposit the amount on the basis of the offer made by him and the petitioner accordingly deposited Rs,25,000 with the Court in February, 1979. The learned Rent Controller passed the order under section 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance for the first time on 4-2-1981 in the ejectment petition pending since, 1970. The sum of Rs,25,000 deposited in the afore noted manner was adjusted against the sum of Rs,32,000 the outstanding rent. It may be noted that Rs,10,000 was however, not allowed to be adjusted as it was the case of the respondent that the said amount stood forfeited as per intimation conveyed vide letter dated 17-10-1973 (Annexure "R-I" with the written statements). The learned Rent Controller after recording evidence of the parties accepted the ejectment petition, vide order, dated 19-1-1982 by recording findings in favour of respondent-landlord on the issues of default and subletting. On appeal of the petitioners the learned Additional District Judge, vide judgment, dated 5-6-1982 reversed the finding of the learned Rent Controller on the issue of subletting but upheld the finding returned on the issue of default and thus maintained the eviction order. These orders were then assailed by filing the present constitution petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that neither the learned Rent Controller nor the learned appellate Court has considered the question whether the default was willful or not, in its true perspective. His plea was that receipt of Rs,10,000 and payment of Rs,25,000 to the House Building Finance Corporation sufficiently established the bona fides of the petitioner No,1 the tenant and as such even after recording finding of default, eviction orders should not have been passed as the said default was not willful.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the impugned judgments, I am of the considered view that the submissions made have no merit.The agreement set up by the petitioner is, dated 20th November, 1967. This agreement admittedly was not signed by the respondent who was supposed to be selling the property. Moreover, as held by the learned Judges of the Supreme Court the two receipts showing payment of Rs,10,000 are not in any manner of assistance to the petitioners in showing that the relationship between the parties earlier existing had suffered a change on account of these receipts. The relationship of tenancy as was held subsisted and was continuing so the payment of Rs,10,000 made at a time when the default had already accrued was of no consequence. Moreover, the question whether the said amount of Rs,10,000 was rightly forfeited or not will be decided by the civil Court in the suit for specified performance filed by the petitioner as late as in the year 1982. Similarly, payment of Rs,25,000 in the afore noted circumstances is of no avail to the petitioners for the present purpose. The learned Rent Controller as well as learned appellate Court attended the question whether the default was willful or not. They have come to the conclusion that the same is willful. This finding of fact is not amenable to interference in constitutional jurisdiction.
4. For these reasons this petition fails and the same is dismissed with costs.