This Constitutional petition is directed against the order dated 3-12--1988 passed by the learned Rent Controller directing the petitioner to deposit the rent.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondents Nos.2 and 3 who were minors filed a petition through their father Professor Dr. Iqbal Ahmad Chaudhry, seeking ejectment of the petitioner from the property bearing No.103/9, LMQ Road, Nawan Shehar, Multan. In the ejectment application it was claimed that the petitioner was a tenant under the landlords at the monthly rent of Rs.5,000 from August, 1982 to August, 1983. He paid the rent till August, 1983. Thereafter the rent was enhanced to Rs.5.500 per month. Against the petitioner /tenant paid the rent till July, 1986 and thereafter committed default till the institution of the ejectment petition. A notice demanding rent, through registered post A.D. Was sent to the petitioner on 10-11-1987 but to no effect.
3. The petitioner filed his written statement in the Court on 27-9-1988 in which he alleged that he was not a tenant under respondents No.2 and 3. He claimed that an oral agreement to sell was entered into between Professor Iqbal Ahmad guardian of respondents Nos.2 and 3 on the one hand and the petitioner on the other. The petitioner claimed to have paid a sum of Rs.80,000 as earnest money and been given possession of the shop under the agreement to sell.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that before ordering deposit of rent the learned Rent Controller should have framed an issue about relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, allowed them to lead evidence and then decided the same. In this connection he has placed reliance on Muhammad Akram v. Muhammad Zar 1987 SCMR 1988 and A.I Muhammad v.
Jamal Din PLD 1966 Lah.934. There is no judge with the legal proposition urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan in favour of the petitioner, because the petitioner had suppressed the order dated 6---11-1988 passed by the learned Rent Controller. Although I do not approve of the way in which the said order was passed by the learned Rent Controller, yet I do not propose to interfere with the same because the petitioner was guilty of suppressing the same. This order was placed on the record alongwith the written statement filed by respondents Nos.2 and 3.
The learned Rent Controller had considered the petitioner's contention of oral agreement to sell and was not persuaded to accept the same. This order, in substance, meant that the petitioner was not in occupation of the premises as an owner on the basis of the agreement to sell but was a tenant under respondents Nos.2 and 3. The said order, though not a happy one, was neither challenged by the petitioner nor brought to the notice of this Court. The learned counsel for respondent No.3 had appended the order with the written statement which was filed in the Court on 4-3-1989. He particularly referred to this order when the case was taken up on 23-4-1989.
Despite that the petitioner took no steps to amend the petition and to challenge the said order. The learned counsel for the petitioner has merely expressed regrets that he, inadvertently, failed to bring the said order to the notice of this Court earlier. This order was of vital importance and had a direct bearing on the case. It was definitely in the knowledge of the petitioner but be appears to have suppressed the same deliberately. This fact alone is sufficient to disentitle the petitioner the discretionary relief under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan.
5. For the foregoing reasons this writ petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
H.B.T/S-567