ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.--The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 13- 9-1989 of the Peshawar High Court.
2. The facts, in brief, are that on 20-11-1985, respondent Masood Pervez brought an application for the ejectment of Roshan Din from the shop in question in the Court of Rent Controller, Peshawar. It was alleged that Roshan Din was tenant under Mst. Perveen Akhtar on monthly rent of Rs,150. She sold the shop in favour of Masood Pervez respondent through the registered sale-deed on 11-7- 1985. An eviction order was sought on the grounds of default in the payment of rent and that of personal requirement. Roshan Din contested the eviction application. He admitted the possession of the shop under Mst. Perveen Akhtar. It was stated that she had executed an agreement of sale on 11-8-1983 in favour of his son, namely, Muhammad Ishaque who had paid Rs,20,000 as earnest money and thereafter in the month of September, 1983 paid Rs,80,000 in two different instalments.
Mst. Perveen Akhtar got possession of the shop from him and handed it over to his son. He denied to be in possession of the shop and his liability to pay rent of the defaulting period. Muhammad Ishaque also submitted an application for impleading him as a party to the ejectment proceedings but it was rejected by the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller determined the issue of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that Roshan Din had defaulted in payment of rent of the shop. As such an order of ejectment was passed against Roshan Din. Roshan Din challenged this order before the High Court in appeal. The learned High Court dismissed the appeal. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Muhammad Ishaque had instituted a suit for specific performance of the said sale agreement in the Civil Court which was pending for decision of title of suit shop. Mst. Perveen Akhtar had admitted that there was an agreement of sale with Muhammad Ishaque and she had received Rs,20,000 as earnest money and that Muhammad Ishaque was a necessary party and that the Rent Controller had erred in dismissing the application. The petitioner was in possession of the suit shop not as a tenant but in his own right. It was further submitted that no notice of the transfer of the shop was received by the petitioner. He has referred to the statement of Liaqat Ali, postman who stated that addressee was not present, therefore, he returned the letter hack to the respondent.
4. The contentions raised require examination. Leave is, therefore, granted.
Security Rs,2,500.
The eviction of the petitioner is stayed meanwhile.