' This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan calls in question the order dated 18-4-1989 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, whereby he set aside the order dated 2-5-1988 passed by the Rent Controller, Lahore, who accepted the ejectment application filed by the petitioner in respect of two shops (the number of which has not been given in the ejectment petition) situate at Madrassa Darul Aloom Al-Baqiat-ul-Salihat, Ravi Road, Lahore.
2. The facts relevant for disposal of this case arc that the petitioner herein filed an application for ejectment against respondent No,2 from the shops in dispute on the ground that the aforesaid respondent had executed a rent note in favour of the petitioner but violated the terms of tenancy by causing damage to the property and also committed default in the payment of rent. The learned Rent Controller in view of pleadings of the parties, issues framed thereunder and evidence led by them, accepted the application' by order dated 2-5-1988 and ordered eviction of respondent No,2 from the disputed shops. On appeal, the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, after re-appreciating the evidence, recorded a finding of fact that relationship of landlord and tenant was not established between the parties, inasmuch as, the Auqaf Department did not have any title in the disputed property to lease it out to the petitioner, the same having been acquired by the Lahore Development Authority.
3. Mr. Irshad Ahmad Qureshi, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the learned Additional District Judge has failed to appreciate that relationship of landlord and tenant was established between the parties, in that, respondent Khursheed Ahmad duly executed lease deed Ex.A4 in favour of the petitioner and continued paying him rent for sometime. The contention has no force.
The learned Additional District Judge duly considered this plea and repelled the same by holding that title of the petitioner was defective and in any case the property having been taken over by the Lahore Development Authority, petitioner ceased to be the landlord.
4. It is not necessary to examine further the respective contentions of learned counsel for the parties. The property in dispute being admittedly evacuee trust property was governed by the exemption notified by the Provincial Government at the relevant time. The Evacuee Trust Property Board managed the property in dispute through the petitioner, who was allottee under the former, but all the evacuee properties under the administration of Evacuee Trust Property Board were exempted from the operation of Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. Refer Sh. Khushi Muhammad v. Anjuman Himayat-i-Islam, Lahore (PLD 1975 SC 54), wherein it was held that evacuee character of the property is determined with reference to its ownership by a person who under the relevant law is an evacuee as distinguished from any inherent characted of the property it elf and the exemption was available to all the property owner by the Evacuee Board. Respectfully following the ratio laid down in the precedent case, I hold that the learned Additional District Judge rightly held that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The ejectment petition A filed by the petitioner was incompetent.
' When faced with this, Mr. Irshad Qureshi, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that in 1985 the property in dispute had been transferred to the Auqaf Department and, therefore, the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. The contention is misconceived. The property in dispute was a trust property and, therefore, the learned Rent Controller had no jurisdiction in the matter. In view of the above, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.