Through this Constitutional petition, Harm Saeed Ahmad wants this Court to declare the order dated 9-10-1985 of District Judge, Bahawalpur, to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
2. The facts leading to this petition, briefly, are that on 1-12-1977 Haji Muhammad Shafi, respondent No. 2, filed application for ejectment of Hafiz Saeed Ahmad petitioner from a portion of House No. 182/CA situated in Faiz Colony, Bahawalpur, before learned Rent Controller, Cantonment Board, Bahawalpur. The petitioner denied the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The preliminary issue was framed and the application was dismissed on 14-3-1979. On appeal the case was remanded back to the Rent Controller, Cantonment Board, Bahawalpur. The parties led their evidence. The trial Court again dismissed the application on 21-5-1980. Feeling aggrieved thereby Haji Muhammad Shafi filed appeal before the learned District Judge, Bahawalpur, who while accepting the appeal set aside the order of the learned Rent Controller and allowed the application for ejectment vide his judgment dated 8-4-1981. Hafiz Saeed Ahmad questioned the legality of the aforesaid judgment of the learned District Judge through Writ Petition No. 301/81. The writ petition was allowed on 22-11-1984 and the appeal was sent back to the learned District Judge for re-writing judgment according to law after giving the parties opportunity of being heard, on remand. The learned District Judge summoned the parties and after hearing them allowed the same and set aside the order dated 21----1980 of Rent Controller, Cantonment Board, Bahawalpur and the petitioner was directed to vacate the house in dispute and put Haji Muhammad Shafi in possession thereof. Hence this petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned District Judge has taken the factum of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties to be an admitted fact for the reason that the petitioner in his statement recorded by arbitrator Mufti Ghulam Farid had admitted himself to be the tenant under Haji Muhammad Shafi, respondent No. 2. The learned counsel was of the view that since Arbitration Act is not applicable to application for ejectment under section 13 of the Punjab Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, therefore, the appointment of arbitrator, proceedings conducted by him including recording of statement of the petitioner, were all illegal and as such could not have been considered by the learned Appellate Court.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. The learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has supported the judgment of the learned Appellate Court.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for parties with care. I have not been able to pursuade myself to agree with him. I find that the findings of the appellate Court on the issue i.e. Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exist between the parties, is not based on the solitary ground of the alleged admission made by Hafiz Saeed Ahmad petitioner in his statement recorded by arbitrator Mufti Ghulam Farid. While discussing the issue the learned appellate Court in paras Nos. 6 and 7 of its judgment has given more than one reasons for arriving at the conclusion that the relationship of landlord and tenant did exist between the parties. He has taken into consideration statements of Haji Muhammad Shafi, Muhammad Bakhsh, and Bashir Ahmad P.Ws. He has also considered sale-deeds Exh. P. 1, Exh. P. 2, the plan sanctioned by Cantonment Board for the construction of the house by Haji Muhammad Shafi respondent; the permission Exh. P. 3, site plan of the house m dispute Exh. P. 4 and the receipts Exhs. P. 5 to P. 13 of the payment of Tax to the Cantonment and also the admission made by the petitioner before the arbitrator that he was tenant under Haji Muhammad Shari respondent. I am convinced that the learned District Judge was quite competent to consider the admission made by Hafiz Saeed Ahmad petitioner in his statement recorded by the arbitrator. In any case, the statement made by the petitioner before the arbitrator is a previous statement which could be considered and acted upon by the learned appellate Court. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the findings of the learned appellate Court on the question of the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is not based on the alleged admission of the petitioner before the arbitrator alone. The finding is also based on the evidence and circumstances appearing in the case. The learned District Judge was quite competent to reverse the findings of the learned Rent Controller on issue No. 1. He has applied his conscious mind to the relevant evidence on record and has given sound and cogent reasons in support of the conclusion arrived at by him. His judgment does not suffer from illegality or jurisdictional defect. He has not flouted the provisions of relevant law. I do not desire to interfere with the appellate Court's appreciation of evidence.
6. For what has been said above, I do not see any justification to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment dated 9-5-1985 of the learned District Judge, Bahawalpur, in exercise of the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
H.B.T./S-526/L