1. ' This Constitutional petition has been tiled against the judgment dated 23-2-1987 whereby the learned Additional District judge, Lahore, accepted the appeal of the respondent No,1 against the judgment of the learned Rent Controller, Lahore dated 5-12-1985 through which the petitioners' application for eviction of the respondent was allowed.
2. ' Facts briefly are that the petitioner filed an ejectment petition on 28th July, 1983 respecting the Property No,S-II-9-S-3 Dhani Ram Road, Anarkali, Lahore where Anarkali Girls High School was located. The respondents filed a written statement and denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and took a plea that they were paying the rent to Zia-ul-Ghani, another son of the petitioner No,1, at the rate of Rs,300 p.m. Which he receive,' from Ist of October, 1972 till 30th of June, 1983. It was further stated in the written statement that on an objection of the Accountant-General Office the rent was stopped as it came to light that excess rent had been paid. The following issues were framed out of the pleadings of the parties:- "(1) Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant does exist between the parties? PP.
(2) Relief."
3. ' The parties adduced their respective evidence. The learned Rent Controller through his order dated 5th of December, 1985 came to a conclusion that the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties. Since it was also admitted in the written statement that respondents had stopped the payment of rent, as such the order of eviction was passed. The respondent No,1 filed an appeal which was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, through impugned order dated 23rd of February, 1987. Hence, this Constitutional petition.
4. ' It is argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the learned first Appellate Court has failed to appreciate the testimony of Zia-ul-Ghani P.W.1 in its true perspective and has wrongly held that the petitioner had not established the relationship of landlord and tenant. It has also been argued that the respondents have not complied with the direction of the first Appellate Court regarding the deposit of arrears of the rent and the future monthly rent as directed through its interim order dated 18-2-1986.
5. ' I have considered the contentions and have perused the documents appended with this petition.
6. The petitioners have brought on record the judgment of this Court Exh.P1 rendered in W.P. No,978- R/69 wherein they had been held to be the owners of the disputed property. It has also been established on record and even has been admitted by P.W.1 Zia-ul-Ghani himself that he was receiving the rent on behalf of petitioners. Furthermore, respondent Headmistress had herself through letter Exh.P2 dated 9-3-1980 had asked the petitioner No,2 to carry out repairs of the disputed building. This letter was written by her to petitioner No,2 admitting/accepting his capacity as landlord as it has not been brought on record that under what other capacity this letter was addressed to petitioner No,2. Reading of all these documents makes it clear beyond doubt that the petitioners have successfully established the relationship of landlord and tenant on record. In a case reported in 1984 CLC 819 Manzoor Ahmad v. Nazir Ahmad Khan where the wife let out the house to a tenant on behalf of her husband an owner and was receiving rent on his behalf, it had been held that the husband could maintain the ejectment application. In holding so the learned Judge observed as under:-- "In this case both respondent and his wife came in the witness-box to give evidence. The case of the respondent was that he was the owner of the house in question and the house had been let out to the appellant through respondent's wife, who was also collecting rent for and on behalf of the respondent. The wife of the respondent in her evidence corroborated the stand taken by the respondent that she was not the owner but she was collecting rent and issuing receipts in her name but the rent was being received on behalf and with the authority of the respondent. In my view, this is a case where there are two landlords. The wife of the respondent is landlady of the appellant, as she had rented out the premises to the appellant and she was also collecting the rent and issuing rent receipts. But the respondent is also a landlord of the appellant inasmuch as he is the owner of the house in question and according to his evidence and the evidence of his wife, the wife was collecting rent on behalf and with the authority of the respondent. Being an owner, the respondent could maintain any ejectment application under the 1979 Rent Ordinance in view of the definition given in section 2(f). According to this definition, the word "landlord" includes the owner of the premises< Even under the 1959 Rent Ordinance, an ejectment application on the ground of personal requirement could have been maintained by the respondent. Under section 2(c) of the 1959 Rent Ordinance a landlord included a person who was entitled to receive rent in respect of any building or rented land. If the wife was collecting rent from the appellant, according to the evidence adduced on behalf of the respondent, she was collecting the rent on behalf and with the authority of the respondent. Even if it had not been disclosed to the appellant that the real owner of the house was the respondent, the fact remains that the wife of the respondent was receiving rent from the appellant on behalf of the respondent, who is the owner of the house in question."
7. Zia-ul-Ghani himself appeared as P.W.1 and has categorically stated that he was receiving the rent on behalf of the petitioners. In this background, keeping his testimony and other documents into consideration, I am of the considered view that the relationship of landlord and tenant had been established on record beyond any doubt. Since I am accepting the writ petition on this ground, I need not to dilate upon the other arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the. Petitioners.
8. It has also been brought to my notice during the course of proceedings that the property in dispute is in dilapidated condition and the respondents had already taken away the students from the disputed property. Accordingly, this writ petition is accepted and the respondents are directed to hand over the vacant possession of the disputed property to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.