' This second appeal under subsection (6) of section 15 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 (hereinafter called the Ordinance) arises out of the judgment dated 12-12-1990 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sargodha, whereby the order dated 16-6-1990 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Sargodha, striking off the defence of respondents Nos.3 {{PAGE CUT}} ' and 4 herein for non-compliance with the order dated 19-5-1990 passed un section 13 (6) of the Ordinance from Shop No,180/181, was upheld.
2. Briefly, the facts are that respondents Nos.1 and 2 filed an application ejectment against respondents Nos.3 and 4 from the disputed shop on allegations of default and personal need for his son Haji Muhammad Ash During pendency of the eviction petition, Phool Muhammad the father of petitioner and respondents Nos.1 and 2, who claimed to be the owner of property, died and therefore, respondents Nos.1 and 2 were impleaded as successors-in-interest. On 21-2-1990, the appellant herein submitted application to the learned Rent Controller for being impleaded as party. This accepted and consequently an amended application for ejectment filed on 4-4-1990 by respondents Nos.1 and 2. The aforesaid respondents did comply with order dated 19-5-1990 passed under section 13 (6) of the Ordina and therefore, their defence was struck off and they were ordered to be evict forthwith by order dated 16-6-1990 passed by the learned Rent Control Sargohda.
3. Muhammad Shabbir appellant herein feeling with I aforesaid order filed appeal claiming that Haji Ashraf respond( No,1 herein and Muhammad Sagheer respondent No,2 herein had no connecC with the shop in dispute and the appellant is the exclusive owner on the basis Mutation No,1365 dated 2-2-1967 and his father Phool Muhammad decear d v just a Benami. It was further claimed that the shop in dispute was rented out the appellant to respondents Nos. 3 and 4 through a rent .Deed dated 27-945 and the appellant had been receiving the rent since then. His grievance was I title of the suit being disputed, the Rent Controller was not competent to deci the same. He also failed to examine whether or not relationship of landlord a tenant was established between the parties.
4. It is an admitted position that in C.P.S.LA. No, 950 of 1975, titled Phool Muhammad v. Settlment Department, it was held that property in disp stood transferred in favour of Phool Muhammad along with its roofs and whi are stated to be in his possession. It is also an admitted fact that PTD has be issued to Phool Muhammad on the basis of valid transfer order passed by t Settlement Authorities which was upheld up to the level of the Supreme Court C.P.S.L.A. No,950/75 decided on 18-2-1981 and respondents Nos. 3 and 4 admittedly in occupation of the disputed shop. Therefore, by operation of 1 relationship of landlord and tenant was established between them. When fac with this Mr Muhammad Rafiq Khan Chohan stated that the petitioner is also t son of Phool Muhammad.
If that is so, he at best was a co-landlord/co-shar with Haji Muhammad Ashraf and Muhammad Saghir and, therefore, t impugned order of eviction can be validly passed on the application of one of t co-sharers. The mere fact that some proceedings are allegedly pending before t learned Member, Board of Revenue,wherein a challenge has been made to t mutation dated 2-2-1987, does not affect the validity of the impugned orders.
5. Be that as it may, the learned Additional District Judge rightly observed that the appellant herein may seek redress from the civil Court on the question of title of the disputed property. This order was in conformity with the dictum laid down in Rehmatullah v. Ali Muhammad etc. (1983 SCMR 1064).
' In view of the above, I find no force in the appeal which is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.