1. ' SALEEM AKHTAR, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to challenge the judgment passed by the learned Judge in Chamber dismissing the writ petition filed by respondents Nos.1 and 2 and confirming the order of his ejectment passed by the Controller and the learned District Judge. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed an ejectment application against the petitioner under section 13 of the Punjab Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 alleging that he is a tenant of Shop No,P-49, Block No,1, Al-Faisal Bazar, Gojra and is liable to be ejected on the ground of default in payment of rent. It was pleaded that these respondents had purchased the said shop and having partitioned it into portions, one was kept by respondent No,1 while the other shop was rented out to the father of the petitioner.
2. After the death of his father, the petitioner continued as a tenant and paid the rent. However, for the last about one and half year he was not paying the rent. It was further alleged that he was transferring the property on `Pagri' to another person and causing damage to the shop. It was claimed that rent from 1st May, 1981 till the filing of the ejectment application on 7-11-1982 came to Rs,2,700 which is due and payable.
3. ' The petitioner denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and pleaded that the shop in his possession had been transferred to his father by the Settlement Department and he was in possession thereon as owner of the same and not as a tenant of respondents Nos.1 and 2. From the record it seems that a suit had been filed by respondents Nos.1 and 2 against the petitioner for title of the property which has not yet been disposed of. The Rent Controller by order dated 7th January, 1985 held that relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties and ordered for the eviction of the petitioner from the shop. The petitioner filed an appeal but it was dismissed for non- payment of proper court-fee. He challenged this order in writ petition before the High Court which was dismissed on 5-10-1987. However, in the appeal filed before the Supreme Court he succeeded and the case was remanded to the District Court on 25th January, 1988. In remand the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of ejectment was allowed by the Additional District Judge on 23rd May, 1988. This judgment was challenged in writ petition which was accepted by judgment dated 29th January, 1990 and the case was remanded for fresh hearing. The parties were also allowed to lead additional evidence. The additional evidence recorded by the Controller was remitted to the District Court. On consideration of the entire evidence by judgment dated 9th October, 1991 the learned District Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner holding that the shop in possession of the petitioner is owned by respondents Nos.1 and 2 and the petitioner is the tenant. Petitioner challenged this judgment in writ petition which was dismissed by the impugned judgment.
4. ' The learned Judge in Chamber while dealing with the evidence of the parties was impressed by the statement of the petitioner to hold that the shop transferred to his (petitioner's) father had been given on Tagri' by him to Mushtaq. From this it was concluded that the other shop which is in his possession belonged to the respondents Nos.1 and 2. The entire reasoning and conclusion was summed up in the impugned judgment is as follo4:-- "As regards the main plank of the case of the petitioner that he is in possession of the shop transferred to his father, it is to be seen that the property bearing No,P-49, Block No,1, Al-Faisal Bazar, Gojra which was evacuee in nature, admittedly comprises of 6/7 shops, one of which was transferred to the father of the petitioner. While appearing as his own witness, as P.W. 2, the petitioner admitted that shop transferred to his father had been given on `Pagri' by him to Mushtaq.
5. In view of this admission and the other evidence on the record, both the Rent Controller as also the District Judge found that the shop in possession of the petition:r was not the same which had been transferred to his father and in fact that shop had been rented out by him to Mushtaq. These findings are clearly borne out not only by the other evidence but also by the admissions made by the petitioner himself. It is, therefore, idle on his part to contend that the shop in question had been transferred to his father and he is in possession of the same as owner."
6. ' Mr. Shahid Hussain Kadri, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that all the Courts below have misread the evidence and had given undue importance to the statement of the petitioner. It was further pointed out that the petitioner's father Khushi Muhammad had created two shops out of the shop allotted to him, one of which was rented out and the other was in his own possession. In this regard, he has referred to the plan and the permission granted to Ch. Khushi Muhammad by the Municipal Committee, Gojra for construction and making alteration in the shop.
7. Leave is granted to consider whether the evidence has been misread as regards the ownership of the shop in dispute. The operation of the impugned judgment is stayed.