MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J.- This judgment will dispose of W.P.No.7075/90, W.P.No.7076/90 and W.P.No.7077/90 as common questions of law and facts arises therein.
2. Mst. Khadija Begum, respondent No.1 in all these petitions filed three separate, petitions for ejectment against the-three petitioners with respect to quarters 10,11 and 14 Gunj Bakhsh Colony, Lahore alleging that the petitioners are in possession of the quarters as her tenants. She stated that she was the owner of these quarters and the petitioners had executed rent note in her favour, In the written statements filed by the petitioners, an objection was raised that there was no relationship of landlady and tenant between the parties. It was admitted in the written statement that the petitioners herein have executed rent note in favour of respondent No.1 but it was pleaded that the execution was a result of fraud and misrepresentation practised by respondent No.1. It was also alleged that the quarters in question have been declared to be the Katchi Abadi and the proposal to confer the proprietary rights of this property was under consideration of the L. D.A.
3. When the matter came up before the learned Rent Controller on 14.2.1989 he observed that though the relationship of landlady and tenant had been denied but as the execution of rent deed stood admitted, the petitioners will remain tenants under respondent No.1 till such time the plea of fraud and misrepresentation was established before the Civil Court and the rent note cancelled. As regards objection that the property has been declared as Katchi Abadi. It was observed that according to the case of the petitioners themselves the proprietary rights have not yet been conferred. He observed that the question relating to title of the property may got determined by the petitioners by the Civil Courts. He proceeded to pass an order under Section 13(6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 directing the petitioners to deposit arrears as well as future rent in favour of the landlady. After framing an issue on merits, relating to default the cases were adjourned by him to .10th April. 1989. Subsequently, however, an objection was raised that the petitioners had failed to comply with the order under Order 13(6) of the Ordinance and their defence may be struck of. Finding force in this objection the Rent Controller on 28th March, 1990 struck off the defence of the petitioner and directed their eviction from the property in dispute.
Aggrieved by this order three separate appeals were filed by the petitioners which was however dismissed by the Additional District Judge on 31.7.1990. Hence these petitions.
4. Mr. Ghulam Rasool Mehr, Advocate for the petitioners submitted that as the relationship of landlady and tenants between the parties had specifically been denied by the tenants and as there was doubt as to the title of the property, the Rent Controller could not have passed any order for deposit of rent but should have framed a preliminary issue and determined the question of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties before proceeding any further. Reliance has also been on Rehmat Ullah v. Ali Muhammad and another (1983 SCM R 1064), Province of Punjab through Education Secretary and another v. Mufti Abdul Ghani (PLD 1985 S.C. 1) and Sh.
Muhammad Hanif v. Muhammad Nisar and 2 others (PLJ 1990 Lahore 543), to contend that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case the landlady should have been called upon to prove her title before the Civil Court.
Mr. Riaz Kiani, Advocate, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has however argued that as the petitioners had admitted the execution of the rent note in favour of the landlady, they could not have been allowed to raise the plea that there was no relationship of landlady and tenants between the parties and the learned Rent Controller was justified in summarily repelling the objection raised in this behalf. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 further submitted that it was the petitioners/tenants who should have gone into the Civil Court.
In the petitions for ejectment respondent No.1 claimed to be the owner as also the landlady of the premises and had pleaded that the petitioners/tenants had executed a rent note in her favour. The execution of rent note was not denied by the petitioners but instead it was pleaded that the execution was procured from them through fraud and misrepresentation. However, particulars of the fraud and misrepresentation as required by law' were not furnished in the written reply. In these circumstances the Rent Controller was justified in proceeding to overrule the objection as to the relationship of landlady and tenants summarily subject to the final decision by the Civil Court. In Rehmat Ullah's case relied upon by the learned counsel lor the petitioners it was held that keeping in view the facts and circumstances of a particular case that either of the parties can be asked to go to the Civil Court. In the present case, keeping in view the fact as the execution of the rent note was admitted, the direction by the Rent Controller that the petitioners should approach the Civil Court does not appear either to be arbitrarily or illegal so as to warrant interference by this Court in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction.
As a result of what has been stated above all the three petitions are dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
It is however, clarified that none of the observations made in this op er by any of the authorities below shall prejudice the case of the partition before the Civil Court, With the consent of the parties it is directed that the order passed bv the Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge shall remain suspended for a period of one month from today during which time the petitioners may approach the Civil Court for the grant of appropriate relief.