' This order will dispose of writ petitions registered as P.W. Nos.361 and 625, both of 1986.
2. Muhammad Yaqoob, respondent No,1, claims to be the owner of House No,D-451 situated in Main Bazar Lohari Gate, Lahore by virtue of sale in his favour made by one Qamar-ud-Din. According to him the house has three floors. He alleges that a store under the staircase on the ground floor and the first floor are in the occupation of Muhammad Saleem, petitioner No,2 in Writ Petition No,625 and the inter-floor and the top floor are in the occupation of Muhammad Tufail, petitioner No,2 in Writ Petition No,361. He further alleges that the said two petitioners were tenants under Qamar-ud- Din and used to pay rent to him. After purchasing the house he served notices under section 13-A of the. Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance upon them.
3. On 15-12-1981 he filed two applications for eviction, one against Muhammad Saleem and the other against Muhammad Tufail, before the Rent. Controller. He averred that both Muhammad Saleem and Muhammad Tufail were defaulters in payment of the rent and further that he needed the portions in their possession for his personal use. The applications were resisted by both the said petitioners. They alleged that the property bearing No,D-451 lay demolished at the site and that there were no upper portions therein. There was only one staircase in existence at the spot which led to another property bearing No,D-453. Under the staircase there was a small store which was being used by Muhammad Saleem; further Muhammad Saleem was running an academy by the name of Taj Din Zareen Raqam Academy and that Muhammad Tufail was a mere pupil therein.
They both denied that they were tenants under Muhammad Yaqoob.
4. During the course of proceedings before the Rent Controller, Baithak-e-Kataban, petitioner No,1 in both the writ petitions, moved applications for being impleaded as party to the proceedings. It may be mentioned that petitioner No,1 is a registered society constituted mainly to promote the art of calligraphy. Its case was that the Government had issued a notification expressing its intention to acquire the house in question for its use. The applications were rejected by the Rent Controller on the ground that mere issuance of a notification expressing an intention to acquire the property did not give any locus standi to petitioner No,1 to become a party to the proceedings.
5. On the pleadings of the parties the learned Rent Controller framed only one issue which was to the effect:- "Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties?"
' In support of his case Muhammad Yaqoob produced three witnesses including himself. He also placed on record copies of the sale-deed executed in his favour by Qamar-ud-Din and the registered notioes which he had sent to Muhammad Saleem and Muhammad Tufail. On their part Muhammad Saleem and Muhammad Tufail placed on record the notification of acquisition issued by the Government which had in the meantime been made.
6. Muhammad Yaqoob challenged the legality of the notification of acquisition in writ jurisdiction in the High Court (see W.P. No,5312 of 1983). By an order, dated 12-5-1985 a learned. Single Judge accepted the writ petition and declared the notification of acquisition to be of no legal effect.
7. As, apart from the notification of acquisition Muhammad Saleem and Muhammad Tufail did not produce any evidence to rebut the one led by Muhammad Yaqoob the learned Rent Controller found that the relationship of landlord and tenant did 'exist between the parties. Accordingly by an order, dated 15-7-1984 he directed their eviction.
8. From the orders of the learned Rent Controller both Muhammad Saleem and Muhammad Tufail lodged appeals before the Additional District Judge. During the pendency of the appeals they moved applications for permission to, lead evidence in rebuttal. No order was made by the learned Additional District Judge who heard the appeals on these applications. He upheld the findings of the Rent Controller on the question of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and dismissed the appeals. The petitioners have now come together with Baithak-e-Kataban in writ jurisdiction to this Court to challenge the order of eviction.
' In support of these writ petitions the only contention raised on ehalf of the petitioners is that the learned Additional District Judge acted illegally in not recording any decision on their request for leading evidence in rebuttal before dismissing their appeals. They state that since the notification of acquisition was in the field they did not deem it necessary to lead any evidence in rebuttal before the Rent Controller.
10. It is true that the learned Additional District Judge should have passed orders one way or the other on the applications of the petitioners for leading evidence before disposing of the appeals but in the circumstances of this case I do not think that this ground by itself furnishes any justification for interfering with the orders of dismissal of their appeals. It is to be noticed that the notification of acquisition was declared to be of no legal effect by the High Court on 12-5-1984 in the presence of counsel for both Muhammad Saleem and Muhammad Tufail. The Rent Controller did not pass orders of eviction till 15-7-1984. Thus there was intervening period of more than two months. Neither Muhammad Saleem nor Muhammad Tufail moved any application before the Rent Controller for permission to lead evidence in rebuttal in view of the changed position. There is no explanation for this omission. Apparently both Muhammad Salem and Muhammad Tufail did not pursue their defence before the Rent Controller with any measure of diligence. That being so, I do not think that it will be proper for me to interfere in the matter. These writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.