' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by a tenant; against the dismissal by the High Court, of her Writ Petition. It had arisen out of orders of her eviction passed by a learned Rent Controller.
2. The controversy before the learned Courts below was; whether, the petitioner who is stated to be the owner of the land under the building in dispute could be treated as tenant, vis-a-vis, the superstructure belonging to the respondent/landlord. It may be noted here that this assumption has been raised only in the context of the arguments relating to the ownership of the land, in case they are accepted. It has been found that the petitioner, on the finding that she was inducted as a tenant and was liable to pay the rent at least for the superstructure of the building, was a tenant in law, vis-a-vis, the "building".
3. After some arguments the learned counsel could not advance any satisfactory argument to upset the findings of the High Court. He in the alternative requested that the petitioner who has now been physically evicted in execution of the impugned orders may be allowed to seek declaration of her title in so far as the land under the building is concerned.
4. After hearing both the learned counsel on the alternative prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner we consider it a fit case in view of certain observations made in the impugned judgment, to permit the petitioner to seek declaration of title regarding the land under the building in question by filing a suit in the Court of general jurisdiction. She, however, would not be entitled to regain the possession in contravention of the orders of the learned Rent Controller which has been upheld by the High Court in the impugned judgment.