' Faqir Muhammad son of Ghulam Qadir, petitioner claims to be owner of Property No,24-A, Street No,79, Mohallah Gowalan Gowalmandi, Lahore. Similar position has been taken by respondent No,1 that he is owner in possession of the property in question. An application under section 13 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 was instituted by the petitioner before the learned Rent Controller, Lahore, against respondent No,1, on 13-1-1983. The application was resisted by the respondent by filing written statement in the case. The learned Rent Controller rejected the application on the ground that there existed no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties vide order dated 9-7-1988. An appeal was filed by the petitioner against the order of the learned Rent Controller which was heard and dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge Lahore on 27-6- 1989. Orders of the respondents 2 and 3 have been challenged by the petitioner by filing this Constitutional petition. Learned counsel contends that there is documentary evidence available on record to show that petitioner is owner of the property in question. In this behalf rent deed, Annexure `M', has been relied upon by the learned counsel. He further relies upon Annexure 'L', statement having been made by the respondent to show that he now cannot take a turn to say that he is the owner in possession of the property in question.
2. Learned Counsel for the contesting respondent contends that the rent-note and statement, referred to above have been produced before the Rent Controller after the lapse of five years. He further says that property in question was allotted to the respondent by Lahore Development Authority. Admittedly both the parties claim the ownership of the property in question. Petitioner says that he is the owner on the basis of rent-note and the statement Annexures 'M' and The case of the contesting respondent is that the property in question was allotted to him by the Lahore Development Authority. In the circumstances, the title of the property in question is very much in dispute. It has to be resolved on the basis of evidence by the competent Civil Court. Thus, in the rent proceedings title of the property in question cannot be determined by the learned Rent Controller. It has been held in Ramat Ullah v. Ali Muhammad 1983 SCMR 1064, that any of the parties can approach the Civil Court for determination of the title of the disputed property. To this extent learned counsel for the parties agree that civil suit for determination of the title alone would be competent in view of the rule laid down in the above authority. Respectfully following the aforementioned judgment, any of the parties may approach the Civil Court for determination of the title of the property in question by filing a properly constituted civil suit. With this observation, this petition stands disposed of leaving the parties to bear their own costs.