1. ' This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 calls in question the order dated 16-1-1989 whereby a learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, accepted the appeal filed by respondent No,1 against the order of the Rent Controller dated 30-10-1986 and remanded the case to him.
2. ' On 12-1-1984, respondent No,1 herein, filed an application under section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, seeking the eviction of the petitioner from Quarter No,2 of Property No,23-S-17 Hall Street, Islamia Park, Poonch Road, Lahore, alleging that the respondent was a tenant under him but had defaulted in the payment of rental from May, 1983 to December, 1983. The rate of rent was claimed to be Rs,250 p.m.
3. ' In the reply filed by him the petitioner denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and averred that he was in possession of the quarter as a tenant under Haji Abdul Ghafoor, a real brother of the petitioner. The Rent Controller framed a preliminary issue and recorded the evidence of the parties. On 30-104986 the Rent Controller proceeded to dismiss the ejectment petition on the finding that the petitioner was not a tenant under respondent No,l. As indicated above,, this order was set aside in appeal by the Additional District Judge on 16-1-1989 holding that the petitioner had been inducted as a tenant in the disputed tenement by respondent No,1 and that the disputed and other properties continued to be jointly owned .By the owners including the respondent. While coming to this conclusion the Additional District Judge relied upon the rent note Exh.P.1 and the oral testimonies of Rana Manzoor Ahmed Khan and Muhammad Saeed, P.Ws. 3 and 4, respectively.
4. ' Mr. Jahangir A. Jhoja, learned counsel for the petitioner has, on the strength of Sikandar Hayat and 4 others v. Master Fazal Karim (PLD 1971 SC 730), objected to the admissibility of Rent Note Exh.P.1 without formally confronting its executant, namely the petitioner, with the signatures on the document. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is without any force. As has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the contesting respondent that the document Exh.P.1 was specifically put to the petitioner when he appeared as R.W.3 but he denied having signed the same. The provisions of section 145 of the Evidence Act, 1872, were thus substantially complied with.
5. Be that as it may, there cannot be any doubt that a Rent Controller is not a Court and the provisions of the Evidence Act are not applicable to the proceedings before him. Indeed, as held by the Supreme Court in Khadim Mohy-ud-Din and another v. Ch. Rehmat ali Nagra etc. (PLD 1965 SC 459) the proceedings before the Rent Controller are such as are conducted before an executive officer. In Javaid Iqbal v. Rana Muzaffar Khan (1976 SCM R 229) the Supreme Court ruled that Evidence Act was not applicable in terms to rent proceedings. A similar question arose before this Court in Muhammad Iqbal v. Haji Taj Din (1979 CLC 554) wherein it was held that the provisions of section 145 of the Evidence Act could not be made the basis for excluding the evidence recorded in rent proceedings.
6. ' It is next to be seen that the dispute between the parties, namely, whether or not the petitioner was inducted as tenant in the premises by respondent No 1 or his brother Abdul Ghafoor, is essentially one of fact. This question has been answered against the petitioner by the learned Additional District Judge after appraising the entire evidence and relying upon the statements of P.Ws3 and 4 along with the document Exh.P.1. The Additional District Judge also compared the disputed signatures on Exb. P.1 with the admitted signatures of the petitioner and concluded that singnatures Exh P 1/2 were those of the petitioner. These findings on question of fact are not liable to be questioned before this Court in the exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction. Suffice it to say that the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge suffers from no jurisdictional error and is even otherwise amply supported by the evidence on the record.
7. ' In view of the above findings it is not necessary to decide the weliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondent to the maintainability petition on the ground that no Constitutional petition can be maintained againts order of remand.
8. ' For the reasons aforesaid this petition fails and is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.