1. These two connected writ petitions 1204, 1225 of 1989 emerge from identical facts and have some common features also. Therefore, they are being dealt with and disposed of in a single order.
2. However, for proper understanding of the points requiring determination, it appears necessary to narrate relevant facts in each case.
3. Writ Petition 1204/1989:- Rana Fazal Ahmad Khan sought ejectment of Dr. Muhammad Siddique (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner from a shop in the premises known as Ilahi Manzil, Gul Bahar Colony, Sattiana Road, Faisalabad, on the grounds of rent-default since January 1988 and its requirement for his self-use to set up his own office. Ejectment petition was instituted on 5-7--1988.
4. 1t was averred that the shop in question was owned by him and was let out to the petitioner upon payment of rent which in course of time was enhanced to the present rate of Rs.1,000 per mensem.
5. Petitioner who had established Health Centre in the premises resisted the ejectment case. It was submitted that in absence of other co-owners who were necessary parties, ejectment petition was imperfectly constituted and could not proceed; that as Health Centre was established in the rented premises, it had acquired the character of a `scheduled building' and could not be got vacated for personal use. Other allegations in regard to rent-default and personal requirement were also controverted. Material defence was that rent initially fixed at Rs.45 per month and later enhanced to Rs.225 per month was regularly paid to one Mst. Irshad Begum widow of Taj Muhammad son of Ilahi Bakhsh and prior thereto was paid to Taj Muhammad Khan himself. Photo copies of rent- receipts and an extract from the register Excise and Taxation Records were appended in support.
6. Here I may pause to observe that averments in paragraph 1 of the ejectment petition were admitted. Similarly, first portion of paragraph 2 of the ejectment petition was also admitted. Effect of these admissions in the written statements shall be adverted to and commented upon when the pleas raised about absence of relationship of landlord and tenant shall come up for examination.
7. As there was dispute about the rate of monthly rent and the arrears claimed, Rent Controller, on 15- 10-1988, tentatively assessed the monthly rent at Rs.500 and directed the petitioner to deposit the arrears from January 1988 to September 1988 till 31st October, 1988 and future rent at the same rate before 15th of each succeeding month till final adjudication of the ejectment petition. Petitioner was allowed to deduct the rent already deposited or paid in accordance with law. Thereafter, case was adjourned to 2-11-1988 for verification about compliance with the direction for rent deposit. On the adjourned date, it was observed that since there was a dispute about the rate of rent, rent deposited shall not be withdrawn till final decision of the ejectment petition and case was further adjourned to 1-12-1988 for scrutiny of rent-receipts. Meanwhile, petitioner had applied for `re- looking' and elucidation of rent order dated 15-10-1988. Respondent contested the petition. It was submitted that direction about the rate of rent and arrears was unambiguous and could not be reviewed. It was further submitted that petitioner had already defaulted in complying with the direction for deposit of rent and had earned penalty for striking of his defence. Simultaneously, an application pleading default and praying for striking of defence was made by the respondent.
8. Furthermore, on 4-12-1988, one Shabbir Ahmad submitted an application for his impleadment as party stating that the petitioner paid the rent to his sister Mst. Irshad Begum and after her death, rent was paid to him and since he was a true owner-landlord, he was a necessary party and in his absence, not only his rights shall materially suffer but satisfactory decision of the ejectment petition could also not be made. All the three petitions were heard together and by order passed on 4-12-1988, Rent Controller found that Shabbir Ahmad though a co-owner was not a necessary party and declined his request for impleadment. Further found that petitioner had failed to comply with direction for deposit of arrears and future rent as consequent upon this conclusion, struck of his defence and directed him to vacate and deliver possession of the shop before 19-12-1988.
9. Aggrieved by this decision, petitioner preferred an appeal. It failed on 6-2-1989 in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad.
10. Writ Petition 122511989: On 5-7-1988, Rana Fazal Ahmad Khan also commenced an action in ejectment against Javed Ahmad petitioner from the shop in promises known as Ilahi Manzil, Gul Bahar Colony, Sattiana Road, Faisalabad upon the allegations of rent-default and his self- requirement. Petitioner contested the application and submitted identical defence as in the case of Dr. Muhammad Siddique that he paid rent to Mst. Irshad Begum at the rate of Rs.200 per month.
11. In regard to the rest, facts pleaded were similar. Period of rent default was identical but there was a slight difference in the tentative assessment of monthly rent by the Rent Controller. In case of Dr. Muhammad Siddique, monthly rent was assessed at Rs.500 whereas in the instant case, it was fixed at Rs.600 per month. On 15-10-1988, Rent Controller directed Javed Ahmad petitioner to deposit the arrears at the rate of Rs.600 per month from January 1988 to September 1988 before 31- 10-1988 and also future rent at the same rate before 15th of each succeeding month minus the amount already paid or deposited. As direction for deposit of rent was not complied with and rent was not deposited, Rent Controller struck of the defence of the petitioner and directed him to vacate and deliver possession of the shop before 19-12-1988. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 6-2-1989, by learned Additional District Judge.
12. 1971 SCMR 336 was relied upon. In reply, it was submitted by learned counsel for respondent that existence of relationship of landlord and tenant was admitted in the written statements and tentative assessm ent or rate of rent and amount of arrears being not incorrectly determined, default committed was wilful, it could not be condoned and defence was consequently rightly struck of. Learned counsel further submitted that plea about payment of rent to Mst. Irshad Begum and after her death to Shabbir Ahmad was erroneous. Receipts relied upon were spurious and ungenuine. In support, case of Mushtaq Hussain v. Muhammad Shafi 1979 SCMR 496 was referred to.
13. Seen from the above, first material point emerging for decision is about the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. As observed elsewhere, plea that relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist appear to be wholly untrue and was belied by clear admissions in the written statements submitted by the petitioners. In paragraph 1 of both the ejectment petitions which was identically worded, respondent averred that shops in question were owned by him and were let out to the petitioners as his tenants. Both the shops were described with reference to their boundaries and were delineated in red lines on the plan annexed. In corresponding para of the written statements, above averments were admitted. In para 2 of the ejectment petitions, respondent stated that the shops were let out to the writ petitioners 5/6 years ago. Rent, initially, was less but with consent was later enhanced to Rs.1,000 per month. In para 2 of the written statements, petitioners submitted that they occupied the shops as tenants since 1977 but disputed the rate of rent which in case of Javed Ahmad petitioner was stated to Rs.200 per month and in case of Dr. Muhammad Siddique Rs.225 per month which was paid to Mst. Irshad Begum. Though direction for deposit of rent was made in presence of the parties' counsel, yet no objection about denial of tenancy was expressly raised on 15-10-1998. Petitioners are shown to have objected to the rate of rent and arrears only. As tenancy was admitted in pleadings, Rent Controller could legitimately rely on those admissions for making of an order for deposit of rent.
14. Admissions in pleadings on point of tenancy were binding upon the petitioners and were sufficient for the Rent Controller to proceed under section 13 (6) of Rent Ordinance to make an order for deposit of rent. After having admitted the tenancy under respondent A No.1 which admission included liability to pay rent also, alleged payment of rent to Mst. Irshad Begum appeared to be a meaningless assertion. On correct and true reading of the pleadings, relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties beyond dispute. The argument that without prior determination of the issue about relationship of landlord and tenant, direction for deposit of rent could not be made is without real merits in it and cannot be accepted. This brings me the second point. In terms of section 13 (6) of Rent Ordinance where there is a dispute about the rate of rent or amount of rent due, Rent Controller is required R to determine both approximately subject to their final determination at the end of proceedings as is evident from section 13 (8) of the aforesaid law.
15. Assessm ent is tentative and determination is provisional. There was neither a lease deed nor receipt to assist determination of rate of rent and amount due. An extract from the Excise and Taxation records was filed. Rent Controller appeared to be alive to the rival contentions and proof then existing on case-files and upon its proper appreciation, struck a mean and passed an order for deposit of rent accordingly. Both the shops are situated in the commercial city of Faisalabad. In absence of clear documentary evidence to assist tentative assessment and provisional determination of payable monthly rent and the amount due, an element of judicial guess for working out a fair and proper estimate was bound to play its role in the opinion making. Therefore, it could not be asserted that tentative, assessment was either fanciful, capricious or vindictive and was merely aimed at foreclosing defence of the tenants. Authenticity of rent receipts indicating payment of rent to Mst. Irshad Begum was not beyond doubt. It is inconceivable as to how after clearly admitting the respondent as landlord, petitioners selected Mst. Irshad Begum and preferred to pay her rent. Mst. Irshad Begum is dead. There is no receipt showing payment of rent to Shabbir Ahmad. It is agreed that neither rent arrears nor future rent was deposited. There was no legal justification for the petitioners to disregard and disobey the order of the Rent Controller and fail to deposit rent. Default was wilful and could not be condoned. As far the contention that opportunity of defence was denied, it is also without substance. Order for deposit of rent was passed in presence of the parties. There was no ambiguity about it and none was pleaded. Its import and effect was clear. Instead of complying with the rent order, petitioners applied for `re-looking' at it. In my opinion, it was clearly a misconceived action and was an attempt to evade liability for payment of rent. Rent receipts showing payment of rent to Mst. Irshad Begum were before the Rent Controller when he passed the rent order. Petitioners were cognizant of their own default. There is no good explanation for condonation of default. Even at the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners was unable to furnish satisfactory explanation as to why rent was not deposited as directed by the Rent Controller. Records indicated that on point of default, petitioners were sufficiently heard. It was not a case which required evidence to establish the attributed default. I shall now take up the contention about impleadfient of Shabbir Ahmad and its effect. Application for impleadment stated that intervenor was a co-owner in the property of which rent was first paid to his sister and thereafter to him. Therefore, he claimed himself to be a necessary party. It has already been found in agreement with the learned Courts below that relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties already on record and the case set up about payment of rent to Mst. Irshad Begum was not a true version of the events. In this view, as a mere co-owner, Shabbir Ahmad had no right to intervene in the proceedings. Also, mere pendency of a civil suit instituted by Mst. Irshad Begum which after her death was continued by her legal representatives including Shabbir Ahmad for a share in the joint property was not a very strong circumstance for keeping decision of rent matters in abeyance to await adjudication on title dispute from the Civil Court.
16. Moreso, when the petitioners, had clearly admitted tenancy in their defence and respondent as the landlord, therefore, liability to pay rent could not be doubted. Be that as it may, impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality. Neither there is any jurisdictional defect in them. Therefore, it cannot be successfully asserted that the view taken by the learned Courts below was not a correct and reasonable view of the record. No valid ground is made out for causing interference with the impugned determinations which in my view proceed on correct assessment of facts and the law applicable thereto. Before parting with the case, I must also notice another argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners. It was submitted that Rana Fazal Ahmad Khan was a practising Advocate in Faisalabad and at the relevant time was holding the office of the President of the District Bar Association and in view of his exalted position in the legal profession, ejectment petitions filed by him were quickly decided. Argument partakes of partiality in the Courts below which dealt with the matters. Ejectment petitions were instituted in July, 1988 and we're decided in Decemebr, 1989. Appeals preferred therefrom were disposed of on 6-2-1989. In each case, Rent Controller gave fifteen days only to vacate the premises. On appeals, further one month was allowed to the petitioners to deliver possession. Proceedings before the Rent Controller are summary. These require quick and expeditious decision. This is what has been done in these two cases. I hope the same sense of expedition is shown to all rent cases pending in Faisalabad Courts to avoid any feeling of discriminatory treatment. Though the argument obliquely hinted at partiality yet from the records; it did not receive any support. On merits, correct adjudication has been made and requires no interference in exercise of equitable jurisdiction. Writ petitions are dismissed with no orders as to costs. However, petitioners are allowed two months to vacate and make alternate arrangements.
17. Records be returned. Copy of the judgment shall also be placed on the file of the connected case. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.