SAAD SAOOD JAN, J: --This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby the SA.O. Of the petitioner challenging the legality of an order of eviction passed against the petitioner was dismissed.
2. Haji Mehraj-ud-Din, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, was owner of a plot of land measuring 1 kanal 15 marlas on Chah Meeran Road, Misri Shah, Lahore. In January, 1968 he rented out a portion of the plot, measuring 17-1/2 marlas, alongwith a room standing therein, to the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs.250. A few months later he leased out the remaining portion of the land also to the petitioner and the total rent of the entire plot was fixed at Rs.5,000 per annum.
Haji Mehraj-ud-Din died in 1978, whereupon the respondents sent a notice under section 13-A, Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, to the petitioner. On 15-4-1987 the respondents filed an application before the Rent Controller for the eviction of the petitioner on the grounds that they needed the property for their personal use and that the petitioner was a defaulter in the payment.
Of rent. 'The petitioner resisted the application alleging that he was not a tenant under the respondents. Accordingly, the Rent Controller framed the following issues:-- "(1) Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties?
(2) Whether the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to entertain the present application?"
After appraising the evidence of the parties the learned Rent Controller decided both issues in favour of the respondents and directed the ejectment of the petitioner. From the order of the Rent Controller, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge but it was dismissed.
He then filed an S:A.O. But that too failed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
3. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Rent Restriction Ordinance does not deal with annual tenancies but that its scope is limited to tenancies created on monthly basis. It is to be noticed that this plea was not taken by the petitioner either before the High Court or before the authorities under the Rent Restriction Ordinance. However that may be we have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length. In support of his contention he has referred to sections 4(2)(a), 6(1)(a) and 13(6) of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance and argued that these provisions left no room for doubt that the Ordinance was intended to apply only to month to month tenancies. It is to be noticed that there is no provision in the Ordinance expressly excluding tenancies, where rent is payable on yearly basis, from its purview. We do not think that any inference of such exclusion can be drawn from the provisions to which the learned counsel has referred. Had there been any intention, the law-makers would have no doubt used express words to that effect. This petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed.