' This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 calls in question the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Lahore dated 1-7-1989, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner and affirming the order of the Rent Controller dated 15-1-1989 whereby the petitioner was ordered to be ejected from the house in dispute bearing No, D/3194, Kucha Akalian, Mohallah Chowk Matti, Inside Lohari Gate, Lahore.
2. The ejectment petition was instituted by respondents. Nos, 1 to 5 on 14-2-1984 seeking eviction of the petitioner from the house in dispute on the ground of default in the payment of rent. In his written reply, the petitioner denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The Rent Controller after framing necessary issues recorded evidence and found that the petitioner was a tenant under the respondents. He, therefore, proceeded to accept the ejectment petition.
This order, as already indicated, was affirmed in appeal by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore.
3. Mr. J.V. Gardener, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there was an agreement of sale of the house in dispute by the predecessor of respondents Nos, 1 to 5 with Mst. Surrayia Begum, the wife of the present petitioner which has not been taken into consideration by the learned Additional District Judge, although it was produced before him and a specific ground was also taken in the memorandum of appeal. It is, however, not denied by the learned counsel that this document does not form part of the evidence recorded by the Rent Controller. In the written statement filed by the petitioner no plea on the basis of this agreement was raised, but on the other hand, it was pleaded that Muhammad Farid, predecessor of respondents Nos, 1 to 5 was not owner of the house in dispute. In these circumstances, it is understandable as to how the petitioner can be permitted to have a volte-face and raise such a plea now.
' Even if this agreement is taken into consideration it does not improve the case of the petitioner in any manner. There is no averment in the agreement that the possession of the house has been delivered to Mst. Surrayia Begum or that the possession would be under this agreement. That being so, this agreement cannot, in any manner, affect the tenancy between the parties as has been held by the Supreme Court in Mst. Shamim Akhtar v. Muhammad Rashid (PLD 1989 SC 575). Be that as it may, Mst. Surrayia Begum was not party to proceedings for ejectment. If she or her successors have a right on the basis of the alleged agreement, they can avail of the remedy available to them under the law.
4. It was next contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that prior to the filing of the present ejectment petition, the respondents had instituted three ejectment petitions against the petitioner and, therefore, the fourth petition filed by them was not competent. Unfortunately, the copies of the ejectment petitions filed by the respondents earlier or the orders passed therein have not been produced. It is, however, not denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner that none of these petitions were decided on merits. In these circumstances, I do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
' In view of what has been stated above, there is no force in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed in limine. However, the petitioner is allowed two months time to vacate the premises in dispute.