' This Constitutional petition seeks to call in question the orders of the Rent Controller and Additional District Judge, Lahore whereby the petitioner/tenant has been directed to vacate the premises in dispute and deliver vacant possession thereof to the respondents.
2. Respondents sought the ejectment of the petitioner from the premises in dispute on the ground of personal need, default in the payment of rent and the petitioner being a nuisance to the residents of the locality. It was, inter alia alleged in the eviction petition that the premises in dispute were rented out to the petitioner on 1-3-1984 at a monthly rental Rs, 500 which she had been paying but in December, 1986, she stopped the payment of rent and since then she was a defaulter.
3. Petitioner resisted the ejectment petition by denying the relationship of landlord and tenant between her and the respondents. She took the plea that the respondents had orally agreed to sell the property in dispute to her for a sum of Rs, 50,000 out of which, she had paid them Rs, 15,000 as earnest money. Respondents, therefore, had no locus standi to seek her ejectment. In view of this plea taken by the petitioner, Rent Controller framed a preliminary issue regarding the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
4. Both the parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions. Learned Rent Controller noticed serious discrepancies in the evidence adduced by the petitioner regarding the payment of earnest money to the respondents. It was also noted by the Rent Controller that the petitioner had not brought any suit for specific performance of the alleged salc agreement. View taken by the Rent Controller finally was that even if it be accepted that the parties had entered into some agreement of sale, petitioner had failed to prove that there was any stipulation exempting her from payment of rent. Relationship of landlord and tenant was thus found to be existing between the parties and since the petitioner had admittedly not paid the rent after the alleged sale agreement, learned Rent Controller accepted the eviction petition vide his order, dated 15-11-1990 and directed the petitioner to handover vacant possession of the house in dispute to the respondents within 30 days. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner preferred an appeal but with no better result as the same has been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge vide his judgment, dated 27-6-1991. Hence this petition.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He has contended that the respondents having agreed to sell the property in dispute to the petitioner and having received Rs, 15,000 as earnest money, petitioner's possession was protected under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act and the respondents were debarred from seeking her ejectment from the premises in dispute. In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied upon Sardar Muhammad Anwar Khan v. Mian Asghar Ali 1988 CLC 402. I find no merit in this contention for more than one reason.
Firstly, the existence of the oral agreement of sale has not been accepted by the learned Courts below for good reasons and after proper appreciation of the evidence on record. Finding of the two Courts on this factual plea is thus not open to interference in writ jurisdiction. Secondly, even if the existence of the sale agreement is accepted, it is of no help to the petitioner as it was admittedly an oral agreement whereas it is a condition precedent to the application of section 53-A of Transfer of Property Act that there should be an agreement in writing signed by the transferor.
Petitioner is also not shown to have taken possession of the premises in dispute or continued in possession thereof in part performances of the contract. It is an admitted position that the petitioner was already in possession as a tenant before the alleged agreement was reached between the parties. It is also not the case of the petitioner that she was absolved from the liability to pay the rent after the sale agreement. Petitioner is also not shown to have taken any steps in furtherance of the sale agreement. For instance, she had admittedly not filed any suit for specific performance of the agreement. In the circumstances, petitioner's reliance on section 53-A of Transfer of Property Act is wholly misconceived. The afore-noted judgment cited by the learned counsel is also of no help to him as petitioner therein was inducted into the disputed property under the terms of the agreement for sale and it was, therefore, held that in the eviction proceedings initiated against him, he was entitled to seek protection of his possession under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act.
6. On the facts found/admitted in the present case, however, the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties continued despite the alleged sale agreement. Petitioner was, therefore, liable to pay the rent which she admittedly did not pay since December, 1986. Learned Courts below have, therefore, rightly ordered her ejectment. The view taken by the Courts below finds ample support from the case of Haji Jan Muhammad v. Ghulam Ghaus and 2 others 1976 SCM R 141 wherein the respondent had entered into an agreement to sell the property in favour of the petitioner but the agreement contained no stipulation exempting the petitioner from payment of rent till the completion of sale. On admission of the petitioner that he had paid no rent, the Rent Controller ordered his ejectment. The order of Rent Controller was upheld by the Supreme Court of Pakistan holding that the agreement of sale "which formed the sheet-anchor of the petitioner's case did not exempt him from payment of rent and therefore, his continued occupation of the premises in violation of the law could hardly be put forth as a defence or a step towards part performance when admittedly the petitioner had never paid the consideration".
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon. Abdul Ghafoor v. Dr. Muhammad Ashraf etc. 1989 M LD 4710 to contend that after the Rent Controller had decided that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties, he should have proceeded to hold further inquiry regarding the default in the payment of rent and without holding such an inquiry, the eviction of the petitioner could not have been ordered. The judgment cited by the learned counsel is distinguishable on facts insofar as in that case, the tenant had pleaded in his written reply that he had been paying/tendering the rent in the name of the previous landlords and in so doing, he had acted bona fide. It was in view of this specific plea that it was observed in the precedent case that "these aspects of the case should have been examined by the Rent Controller and without doing so no order of ejectment could be passed". In the present case, the petitioner took no such plea as would require further inquiry. In fact, she had admitted that she never paid any rent after the alleged sale agreement. In the circumstances, no further inquiry was called for.
8. In view of what has been said above, the impugned orders of ejectment by the Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge are not open to any exception. Writ petition has no merit and the same is dismissed in limine.