IRSHAD HASAN KHAN J:- This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan calls in question the order dated 23- 6-1990 of the learned Addl. District Judge, Faisalabad, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the ejectment order dated 28-1- 1989, passed by the learned Rent Controller, Faisalabad, was dismissed in respect of house No. S/154, kachi Abadi, Railway Colony, Faisalabad.
2. The writ petition came up for hearing in motion on 31-7-1990 when after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner at length, it was observed that in view of the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below on the question of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and in the absence of any mis-reading of evidence, the writ petition would not succeed. At that stage, Ch. Ata Ullah, learned counsel for the petitioner requested that the petitioner be granted time for vacating the premises. It was pointed out to him that time cannot be granted where the writ petition is dismissed in limine. In this back ground, pre-admission notice was issued to the respondent for 15-8-1990, on the undertaking given by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner may be allowed some time for vacating the premises. Surprisingly at the time of hearing the petition today, Ch. Ata Ullah, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this writ petition should not be heard by me and be transferred to my learned brother Mian Nazir Akhtar J., who partly heard the case on 15-8-1990. The statement made by the learned counsel is ex-fade false, in that, a bare perusal of the order sheet dated 15-8-1990 would show that my learned brother Mian Nazir Akhtar J., directed that the petition be listed for hearing in motion in the third week of September, 1990. Meanwhile, status-quo was ordered to be maintained, It was not a part heard case.
3. Be that as it may, in view of the unqualified apology tendered by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I have pardoned him. Having regard to his standing of 32 years at the Bar, I expect that in future he will be careful, responsible and fair in the performance of his professional duties.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner was given an other opportunity to argue the case. He submitted that the respondent landlord has failed to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of ownership receipt (Exh. A1), and, therefore; in view of ratio laid down in Rehmat Ullah Vs Ali Muhammad and another (PLD 1983 SCM R 1064), the learned Rent Controller ought to have decided this issue against the respondent-landlord and advised him to get his title established from a court of competent jurisdiction. I am afraid the ratio laid down in Rehmat Ullah (supra) is distinguishable and not attracted to the facts of the present case, in that, the learned Rent Controller has recorded a clear finding of fact that relationship of landlord and tenant has been established between the parties. In fact the petitioner's own witness Sardar Muhammad RW-2 stated before the Rent Controller that petitioner was the tenant under respondent No. 1. The learned Addl. District Judge after reappreciation the evidence has concurred with the finding of the learned Rent Controller to which no exception can be taken in writ jurisdiction, particularly, in the absence of any misreading of evidence. The case of Mushtaq Ahmad and 8 others Vs Amina Bibi & 12 others (1987 CLC 328) relied upon by the petitioner does not help him either. In the precedent case, the finding regarding relationship of landlord and tenant was found to have been mis-read. In the instant case, as earlier pointed out, I do not find any mis- reading.
5. It is next contended that the land underneath the property in question is Government property and was not in the ownership of the respondent, therefore, the document Exh. A1 should have been excluded from consideration. Thus the oral evidence led by the respondent was not sufficient to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The contention is devoid of any force. The question of sufficiency or otherwise of the evidence is not a ground for quashing the impugned order. Here the Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that relationship of landlord and tenant is established between the parties. 1 do not find any legal flaw or error in this regard.
6. No other point has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought time for vacating the premises. Learned counsel for respondent has no objection to give him time provided the petitioner gives an undertaking to vacate the premises without any course of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not prepared to accept this offer in the absence of any instructions from his client.
8. In view of the above, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed in limine.