' Through this Constitutional petition Meraj Din petitioner No,1, who is tenant of a Khokha out of property No,S-26-R-6A commonly known as 3-Abbot Road, Lahore, and petitioner No,2 who according to the respondents-landlords is a sub-tenant, have challenged the It legality and vires of the order of ejectment dated 6-6-1992 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Lahore while accepting the landlords' appeal filed against the order of dismissal of their ejectment petition by the learned Rent Controller, Lahore vide order dated 6-6-1992.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case as stated in pleadings are that the Khokha referred to above was given on rent to petitioner No,1, who sublet the same to the petitioner No,2. On failure of the petitioner to pay rent and arising a personal need to the landlords, an ejectment petition has been filed by the respondents-landlords in the Court of learned Rent Controller inter alia on the grounds that there is a default in payment of rent and further that the Khokha is required for the landlords for their self-use and occupation. Ejectment petition is contested by the present petitioners who are respondents in the ejectment petition mainly on the grounds that relationship of landlords and tenant does not exist between the parties and therefore, no ejectment order can be passed by the learned Rent Controller. Case of the petitioners as reflected in the written statement is that the Khokha is installed on the land which belongs to Municipal Corporation which has been taken by them on payment of Teh-Bazari fee from Municipal Corporation, Lahore.
3. In support, of their respective contentions respondents-landlords produced Sibtain Saeed A.W.1, an attesting witness of rent-note Exh.A.1, Muhammad Munir, another attesting witness of rent-note Exh.A.1, Syed Qadeer Ahmad A.W.3, scribe of the rent note Exh.A.1. And documents ExhA3 to A4.
Respondent-landlord himself appeared as his own witness as A.W4. As against the above evidence, petitioners produced Pir Bakhsh R.W.1. He made an oral statement to the effect that the Khokha in question was never rented out to the petitioner and that it is installed on the land of the Municipal Corporation, which was previously occupied by one Muhammad Sharif. Petitioner Meraj Din himself appeared as his own witness as R.W.2 and denied execution of the rent-note in favour of the landlords and contended that he is in possession of Municipal land and is regularly paying Teh-Bazari. In support of the proof of payment of Teh-Bazari, he produced receipts issued by the officials of the Municipal Corporation. Learned Rent Controller vide order dated 25-6-1991 dismissed the ejectment petition holding that the relationship of landlord and tenant does not exist between the parties inasmuch as, the evidence of attesting witnesses cannot be believed as they are employees of the landlords and hence are interested witnesses and that there is no other cogent evidence to prove that the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties.
Aggrieved of the said order, the respondents-landlords filed first appeal which has been accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, who has believed the evidence produced by the landlords which has been corroborated by the documentary evidence, particularly Exh.A1, which is rent-note and A9, which is another rent-note in favour of predecessor-ininterest of the landlords.
' After recording a finding to the effect that the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties, learned Additional District Judge has passed an order of ejectment directing the petitioners to vacate the premises within two months w,e,f. 6-6-1991. Aggrieved of this order, the tenant-petitioner No,1, the sub-tenant petitioner No,2 have filed the present petition in this Court.
4. In support of the writ petition, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has argued that the findings of existence of relationship of landlord and tenant rec did by the learned first Appellate Court are not lawful inasmuch as, evidence of interested witnesses has been believed and further that it has illegally been held that it was for the tenant to prove by producing evidence of Expert that the rent-note Exh.A1 does not bear his signatures. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further argued that it is reflected in the rent-note itself that the Khokha is situated outside the building and therefore, it cannot be held to be a part of the building purchased by the landlords.
Learned counsel has also drawn my attention to Teh-bazari receipts issued by Municipal Corporation and has argued that this evidence clearly proves that the land on which the Khokha is installed belongs to Municipal Corporation, and, therefore, the relationship of landlord and tenant does not stand established and that the finding of the Rent Controller is correct, which has illegally been set aside by the learned first Appellate Court by writing of an illegal judgment at variance.
5. I have considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the record with the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioners. No, misreading or non-reading of evidence has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
Argument that attesting witnesses of rent-note are interested persons is also of no avail, particularly when they have appeared as witnesses and have stood the test of cross-examination and their testimony could not be shattered by the petitioners. Merely because a person is an employee, cannot be a ground to reject his evidence, who otherwise is a natural witness. Rent-note ExhAl does bear the names and signatures of the attesting witnesses and therefore their testimony cannot be discarded only for the reason that they are employees of the landlords. Rent-note ExhAl has been scribed by A.W.3, who has also proved execution as well as the factum of fixation of signatures by petitioner No,1 to whom the premises were let out. ExhA9, rent-note, in favour of the previous landlord also proves that petitioner No,1 was inducted in the Khokha in question as a tenant. Merely because it is written in the rent-note that the Khokha is outside the building does not prove that it was not given on rent to the petitioner No,1.
' Argument of the learned counsel to the effect that the learned first Appellate Court has illegally held that the Expert should have been produced by the tenant is also misconceived. In the case in hand, whatever evidence was legally required to prove the execution of the document ExhAl, has been produced by the landlords. If the evidence has to be validly rebutted, then it was for the tenant to produce an Expert which would have been the best evidence for him, if his contention was correct. Failure of the tenant to produce an Expert as an evidence of rebuttal raises an inference to the effect that plea of the tenant is false, and an inference and a probability is a strong piece of evidence as held in PLD 1983 SC440-- 'Said Wali. v. Yaqoot Khan and another' and PLD 1983 SC 286 = 'State v. Habibir Rehman and others'.
' Argument of the learned counsel to the effect that as according to the rent-note Khokha is situated outside the building, therefore, it should be presumed that it was never rented out to the petitioner is also fallacious. It is an established principle of law that a tenant to whom a property is rented out has no locus standi to challenge the tenancy merely on the ground that there is some evidence to the effect that the person who inducted the tenant was not the real owner. In the case in hand, plea of the tenant on the face of it is mala fide. He has pleaded that the Khokha is installed on the land belonging to Municipal Corporation, but Teh-bazari receipts produced by the petitioners do not prove his contentions. These receipts which have been placed on record of the writ petition at page 72, reflect the name of one Muhammad Sharif through Tasawar Hussain as occupant of a portion of the land of Municipal Corporation for the months of Septmber and November 1986. These receipts do not prove anything and at any rate do not show that the property in question belongs to the Municipal Corporation and that the petitioners are occupants thereof on payment of Teh-bazari fee. It is an established law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in various judgments including judgment rendered in C.A. 180 of 1991, Ghulam Samdani v. Abdul Hameed, decided on 11-2-1992 that a tenant who takes a mala fide plea of lack of relationship of landlord and tenant is liable to be ejected straightaway. In the case in hand, plea of the tenant appears to be false, mala fide and superfluous, because the signatures on the rent-note Exh.A1 tally with his signatures on the power of attorney filed alongwith this writ petition. Even if seen with naked eye, there does not appear to be any dissimilarity in the two signatures. Denial of his signatures on the rent-note is, therefore, just for the purpose of taking a false plea and to cause further harrassment to the landlords and to prolong the litigation.
Even otherwise, this is a writ petition and findings of fact recorded by a Tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction cannot be interfered with in exercise of the writ jurisdiction, particularly when no misreading or non-reading of evidence has either been alleged or pointed out by the learned counsel. Merely because another view of evidence can be taken is not a ground for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction, which besides being discretionary is very limited in nature and it cannot be said that the impugned order has been passed illegally be is otherwise without lawful authority.
Resultantly, writ petition is dismissed in limine. However, in the interest of justice as the petitioners are stated to be earning their livelihood by working in the Khokha in question, I grant them one month's time for vacating the Khokha in dispute w,e,f. Today on the condition that the petitioners shall hand over the vacant possession of the Khokha to the landlords without obliging the landlords to file an ejectment petition. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has made an undertaking that if a period of one month is given, the tenant shall deliver the vacant possession of the Khokha in dispute to the landlords, without obliging the landlords to file the ejectment petition.
In case, the possession is not delivered by the petitioners themselves within the stipulated period, the landlords shall be at liberty to get the ejectment order implemented and get the petitioners ejected through execution proceedings and as the petitioners have been granted time on the basis of undertaking given by the learned counsel for the petitioners in case of failure to abide by the undertaking, the petitioners shall be liable to suffer the legal consequences for their failure to stand by their commitment. Parties to bear their own costs.