SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment dated 21-3- 1987 of the Lahore High Court whereby the appeal of the petitioner from an order of ejectment passed against him by the Additional Rent Controller, Lahore Cantonment was dismissed.
2. The dispute between the parties relates to a house situate in Super Town, Gulgasht Colony, Walton Road, Lahore Cantonment. The respondent filed an application before the Additional Rent Controller for the ejectment of the petitioner on the ground that the latter was his tenant in the house and that he had defaulted in paying rent for five months in 1985 and four months in 1986. The petitioner resisted the application. He denied that the house belonged to the respondent or that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. His case was that the respondent had under some misapprehension constructed the house on a plot that belonged to him (that is, the petitioner). Subsequently, when this error was discovered an agreement was reached between the parties on the intervention of some respectable. According to the agreement the petitioner undertook to pay Rs.1,00,000 by way of compensation for the structure to the respondent in monthly instalment of Rs.2,000 to Rs.2,500.
3. On the pleadings of the parties the learned Additional Rent Controller framed an issue to the effect whether the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. The respondent concluded his affirmatory evidence on 15-10-1986. Thereafter, the petitioner was given a number of opportunities to produce his evidence. He partly examined three witnesses but failed to produce his entire evidence. After being satisfied that the petitioner was purposely prolonging the proceedings the learned Additional Rent Controller closed his evidence. After examining the material on record which included the petitioner's own letters wherein he had admitted his status as a tenant in the house the learned Additional Rent Controller decided the issue in the affirmative and directed his ejectment. From the order of the Additional Rent Controller the petitioner preferred an appeal in the High Court. A learned Single Judge affirmed the finding of the Additional Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal.
4. The finding that the petitioner was occupying the house as tenant under the respondent is on a question of fact. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that this finding is not sustainable on the evidence on record. He has contended that the petitioner was not given sufficient opportunity to lead his evidence. This contention is without any substance. As already mentioned the respondent concluded his evidence on 15-10-1986. The order closing the evidence of the petitioner was made on 18-12-1986. In between these two dates the proceedings were adjourned on three occasions to enable the petitioner to produce his evidence. It was only when the learned Additional Rent Controller was satisfied that the petitioner was purposely prolonging the proceedings that he made the order closing his evidence. We can find no infirmity in the order of the learned Additional Rent Controller in this regard.
5. For the reasons stated above we find no merit in this petition.
It is accordingly dismissed.