' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The only question for consideration in this petition for special leave to appeal which arises out of the proceedings under the Punjab Rent Restriction Ordinance, is whether the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the petitioner and respondent No,1. The dispute relates to a shop which was in the occupation of the petitioner. It was purchased by respondent No,1 from one Qamar Raza. After purchasing the shop, respondent No,1 served a notice under section 13-A of the said Ordinance upon the petitioner. In reply to the notice the petitioner inter alia admitted that he was a tenant under Qamar Raza but agreed to pay rent only if proof of sale in favour of respondent No,1 was furnished. Subsequently, respondent No,1 filed an application for the eviction of the petitioner on a number of grounds including default in the payment of rent.
The petitioner resisted the application. His case was that the land underneath the shop belonged to the Central Government and the structure thereon had been raised by him. The learned Rent Controller as well as the Additional District Judge rejected his defence and declared him to be a tenant under respondent No,1. As default in the payment of rent was not disputed he was ordered to be evicted. He filed a writ petition in the High Court but it failed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. The question whether the petitioner was a tenant under respondent No,1 was one of fact. It is not disputed by the petitioner that he had been paying rent to Qamar Raza and had also sent a money order to respondent No,1 by way of rent. In his reply to the notice which respondent No,1 had sent to him after purchasing the shop the petitioner had clearly admitted that he was occupying the shop as a tenant under Qamar Raza. In the circumstances, there was sufficient evidence before the Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge to hold that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. It is not the case of the petitioner that he was not a defaulter in the payment of rent. His eviction was, therefore, rightly ordered.
3. As regards the title of respondent No,1 to the shop, he may, if so advised, raise this controversy before a civil Court. Leave is refused.