' This judgment shall dipose of Writ Petition No,5016 of 1987 and W.P. o. 5455 of 1987, which are directed against the same judgment of the Addl. District Judge.
2. The dispute in these cases pertain to part of Property No,S-H-27-S-10, ink Mcleod Road, Lahore.
On 11th March, 1983 Mst. Zohra Khatoon, respondent No,1 filed an application under section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent restriction Ordinance, 1959 against M. Iqbal Shahid petitioner in Writ Petition No,5016 of 1987 alleging that she has purchased 1/4th share of property from one Noor Muhammad and that M.Shahid Iqbal was her tenant in the property in dispute. The petitioner resisted this application by filing a reply in which he had tated that he was not a tenant under respondent No,1.
The Rent Controller after raming the relevant issues recorded the evidence of respondent Rod. The petitioner however, subsequently absented himself and was proceeded ex parte. He ejectment petition was accepted on 7th of September, 1986. Being aggrieved he petitioner filed the appeal which was dismissed by the learned Addl. District judge on 8th of July, 1987. Against the said order the petitioner has now filed this constitutional petition.
3. The other Constitutional petition namely W.P.No, 5455 of 1987 has been filed by Mst. Anjam Ara and others complaining that though the property in suit belongs to them and is in possession of M.
Iqbal Shahid as a tenant under the who is being ejected in pursuance to the order of ejectment obtained respondent No,1. It is alleged that during the pendency of the eviction petition filed by respondent No,1 against M. Iqbal Shahid, the predecessor-in-interest the petitioners applied for being impleaded as a party but his application was illegally rejected. Thereafter the present petitioners also filed an appeal challenging the order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller against M. Iqbal Shahid but the appeal was also dismissed. The grievance in the present Constitutional petition is that no order of ejectment could have been passed againt M.Iqbal Shahid who is a tenant under the petitioners.
4. There is no dispute between the parties that the property was originally transferred as evacuee property to Noor Muhammad, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners and a permanent transfer deed was in his favour.
5. Mst. Zohra Khatun respondent No,1 claims that she had purchase. 1/4th share of the property through registered sale deed dated 14-9-1967 an further Noor Muhammad had executed two agreements to sell in her favour o 25th of February, 1978 and 1st of April, 1970 with respect to another 1/4t portion of the same property. It is also not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent that a suit for cancellation of the sale-deed was filed agains respondent No,1 which was dismissed by the Civil Court and the matter is no pending in appeal. Another suit for specific performance to the two agreement. To sell has also been filed by respondent No,1 against Mst.
Anjam Ara and other which is still pending. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has further stated that the P.T.D. Issued in favour of Noor Muhammad was cancelled by the Settlement Department and that cancellation has been challenged by Mst. Anjam Ara and others by filing a civil suit which is pending adjudication.
6. From the above facts it is obvious that the title of respondent No,1 to the property in the suit is already before the Civil Court and it would be appropriate that the same is adjudicated upon by the Civil Court. In the present case the tenancy is being claimed by Mst. Zohra Khatoon respondent No,1 especially as the respondent No,1 is claiming to the landlord of the premises on the basis of her title.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has however, voiced an apprehension that through an execution of the order of ejectment Mst. Zohra Khatoon may not obtain possession of the property belonging to the petitioner. Be that as it may, the petitioners' remedy lies in approaching the Civil Court or the Appellate Court where the dispute is pending for the grant of appropriate relief.
Dispute as regards the title of the property between Mst. Anjam Ara and others and Mst. Zohra Khatoon cannot be decided through this Constitutional petition. As regards the constitutional petition filed by M.Iqbal Shahid it is to be seen that an ex parte order of ejectment has been passed against him which was challenged by filing an appeal in which it was stated that he could not appear Before the Rent Controller as there was some confusion with regard to the date f hearing.
However, before the Appellate Court at the time when the arguments were addressed a contradictory position was taken that the petitioner M. Iqbal Shahid did-not enter appearance on account of his illness. This plea was rejected by the Addl. District Judge in view of the contradictory stand. The impugned order calls for no interference and the Constitutional petitions cannot succeed.
' As a result what has been stated above both the petitions are dismissed leaving the parties to hear their own costs subject to the observations made above.