' This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 arises out of a petition under section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction, 1959 filed by respondent No,3 against the petitioner seeking his eviction from the premises in question on the ground of default in payment of rent. In the written statement filed by the petitioner, he denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and also pleaded that no notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Ordinance, 1958, had been served upon him. The Rent Controller after recording the evidence of the parties held that the petitioner was a tenant under respondent No,3 and proceeded to direct his eviction on 21st October, 1978. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Addl. District Judge, Lahore on 13th October, 1980. Hence this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
2. The first contention raised by Rana Abdul Majid, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner was not granted sufficient opportunity to show cause inasmuch as he wanted to produce in evidence certain documents to prove his title in the property but the learned Rent Controller illegally and unlawfully prevented him from doing so. The order passed by the Rent Controller (Annex D) in this behalf has been referred to. A perusal of this order shows that the permission to produce these documents was refused by the Rent Controller on the ground that the documents had not been relied upon or filed earlier but were sought to be tendered during the statement of the petitioner as a witness without any explanation as to the reason for late production.
3. The learned counsel contended that the provisions of C.P.C. Are not applicable to the rent proceedings and therefore, the documents could not have been excluded due to non-reliance or late production. This argument is misconceived. Even though the provisions of C.P.C. May not be applicable to the proceedings before a Rent Controller, he may if so desire follow the principles contained therein with a view to regulate its own proceedings for ensuring a fair and just trial. It would have been highly unjustified and prejudicial to the other party who had no notice of these documents to allow the petitioner to produce the same at such a belated stage without any explanation whatsoever. It is also to be seen that no regular application for permission to file these documents was ever filed. That being so no valid exception can be taken to the refusal of the Rent Controller to allow the production of these documents.
4. It was next contended by the learned counsel that there was nothing on the record to show that the petitioner had any title to the property. Both the Courts below after appraising the entire evidence came to the conclusion that the petitioner was inducted into possession of the property as his tenant by the respondent. This finding of fact has not been shown to suffer from any misreading or non-consideration of any material nor has any legal error committed by the Courts below been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is also to be noticed that the petitioner through evidence produced by him tried to establish that he had at his own cost and expense raised construction over the plot in dispute as its owner. However, a perusal of the written statement filed by him before the Rent Controller shows that no such plea was raised therein but it was pleased that the petitioner was in possession of the property since 1947. The written statement does not contain any assertion that any construction had been raised by the petitioner at his own cost and expense.
For the reasons aforesaid this petition has no force. It is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.