' An application under Section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 was filed by respondent No,1 against the petitioner Corporation seeking its eviction from the premises in dispute situate in Shandara Jia Musa, Lahore, on the ground of default in payment of rent and damage to the property. In the written reply filed by the petitioner relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was denied. It was also objected that Sh. Nazir Ahmad, was not the Managing Director of respondent No,1, and therefore, had no locus standi to file the petition. Out of the pleadings of the parties a solitary issue in the following terms was framed by the Rent Controller:- "Whether there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties?
' In support of its case respondent No,1 examined Muhammad Saleem Rana A.W.1, Mohammad Rafique A.W.2, Tahir Nazir A.W.3 and Nazir Ahmad its Direction appeared as A.W.4. Lease deed executed between the parties was produced as Exh. A.1. In rebuttal the petitioner examined Muhammad Ijaz R.W.1, Mumtaz Ahmad R.W. 2 and Khurshid Ahmad Khan R.W.3.
2. It appears that an application under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. Was filed by the petitioner objecting to the assumption of jurisdiction by the Rent Controller on the ground that the property in dispute was an industrial concern as such fell outside the purview of Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The same plea was reiterated in the written arguments filed by the petitioner.
3. The Rent Controller vide his order dated 19th of November, 1983 held the petitioner to be a tenant under respondent No,1 and directed its eviction from the premises in dispute. As regards the objection to his jurisdiction, it was observed that the property leased out to the petitioner was rented land and not a factory, and therefore, the ejectment petition before the Rent Controller was maintainable.
4. Aggrieved by this order the petitioners filed an appeal which was dismissed on 7th of May, 1984.
Thereafter, an application for review of that judgment was filed which too dismissed by the Addl.
District Judge Lahore on 22nd October, 1985. Hence this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
5. The only contention raised by Mr. Abid Hassan Minto, the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the premises in dispute were "a factory" the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller stood ousted as the provisions of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, were not applicable. It is conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no such objection was raised in the written statement but as stated by him an application objecting to the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller was filed under Order VII, rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. This plea was repelled by the Rent Controller on the finding that the premises had not been leased out as a factory but as rented land. From a perusal of the judgment of the Additional District Judge, it is evident that this part of the order of the Rent Controller was not subjected to challenge before the appellate Court and therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to raise this objection now.
6. Even otherwise there is no force in this contention. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the property in question was leased out vide agreement dated 17th of November, 1977. A perusal of this document shows that it was vacant land, which was rented out to the petitioner by respondent No, 1 for the purposes of business. It is, therefore, idle on the part of the petitioner to contend that the premies being a factory were not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller.
' There is no force in this petition. It is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.