' This is a second appeal under section 15(6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, from the order of the Rent Controller, Lahore, dated 6-10-1988, which was affirmed in appeal by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, on 16-7-1990.
2. The appeal arises out of an application under section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, filed by Mst. Irshad Begum, respondent herein, against the appellant, alleging that he was in possession of Shop No,9, Clifton Hotel Building, Chowk Australia, McLeod Road, Lahore, as a tenant under her and was liable to be ejected on the grounds of default in payment of rent from January, 1987 to March, 1987 and also for the reason that she required the shop for her own use and occupation.
3. The application was resisted by the respondent on the plea that the tenant in occupation of the premises was an incorporated company by the name of Travel Kings (Private) Limited and there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was objected that the ejectment petition was not maintainable in the absence of a necessary party. On merits, the allegations of default and personal need were denied. It was asserted that Travel Kings (Private) Limited had been regularly paying the rent and was not a defaulter. The averment that the shop being required by the respondent landlady was also controverted.
4. On the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues:
(1) Whether there exists relationship of landloid and tenant between the parties?
(2) Relief.
' The evidence adduced by respondent No,1 in support of her case comprises of the statements of Munir Khan (A.W.1) and Meer Sahib Khan, her general attorney, as A.W.2. A copy of the rent deed executed by the appellant in her favour was produced as ExhAl, while that of the power of attorney as ExhA.2. On the other hand, the appellant produced Javed Iqbal Chughtai (R.W.1) and Abdul Hameed, attorney of the respondent as R.W.2. In addition to this oral evidence, receipts Exhs.R1 to R12 evidencing the payment of rent were also led in evidence. It may also be noted that during cross-examination of A.W.2, the appellant had produced two documents, namely, notices served by the respondent under section 13-A of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 for the enhancement of rent as Exhs.A3 and A4.
5. The Rent Controller, vide his order dated 6-10-1988, held that the appellant was a tenant in respect of the premises under the respondent. This finding was primarily based upon the rent note ExhAl. The Rent Controller, after answering the issue against the appellant, proceeded to direct his eviction from the shop in question without holding any further inquiry and he was of the view that the denial of tenancy being contumacious, it was not necessary to frame the issues on merits.
6. The appellant challenged that order by filing an appeal before the District Court, which appeal was dismissed by an Additional District Judge, Lahore, on 6-3-1989. AggrievedA by that order, the appellant filed a Constitutional petition (W.P.No,1859 of 1989), which was accepted by this Court on the ground that the appeal filed by the appellant had not been decided in accordance with law.
The appeal was, therefore, remanded to the Additional District Judge for decision afresh. By his order, dated 16-7-1990, the learned Additional District Judge once again dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant and affirmed the order of the Rent Controller dated 6-10-1988.
7. Syed Jamshed Ali, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant has raised the following contentions:---
(1) that the shop in question was rented out to Messrs Travel Kings (Private) Limited and not to the appellant, who was the Managing Director of the said company. It was pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant that some important evidence including the admission of A.W.1 has been ignored from consideration by the Courts below;
(2) that even if it be assumed that tenancy was originally between the appellant and the respondent, yet there was a novation of the agreement and a fresh tenancy was treated between the respondent and Travel Kings (Private) Limited. Reference was made to the notice dated 14th September, 1986 by the respondent on Travel Kings (Private) Limited and the receipts Exh.R7 to Exh.R12, and
(3) that in the circumstances of the case, the Courts below were not justified in directing the eviction of the appellant after the decision of the preliminary issue without holding any further inquiry into the allegations regarding default and personal need.
8. Mr. Karamat Nazir Bhindari, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondents, has defended the impugned orders.
9. From perusal of the evidence on the record, it appears that the shop in question was originally rented out by the respondent to the appellant, which fact was evidenced by rent note Exh.A1 dated 2-4-1985. The signatures of the appellant on the said document have not been disputed by him.
The explanation given in this behalf that he had signed the blank paper cannot be accepted in the absence of any cogent evidence, which is not forthcoming. Subsequently, however, the company as also the appellant were treated as same entity by the parties. Although the shop was taken on rent by the appellant, but the premises were being used by the company which was paying rent to the respondent, who received the same, as is evident from the receipts Exh.R7 to R12.
10. Be that as it may, any further discussion on this question appears to be /holly unnecessary, as the impugned orders are not sustainable for the reason hat in the circumstances of the case, an order of ejectment could not have been passed against the appellant without holding any further inquiry into the llegations regarding default in payment of rent and personal need.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the authorities of he Supreme Court of Pakistan in Mahan Bano v. Haji Abdul Ghani (PLD 984 SC 17) and Province of Punjab through Education Secretary and another Mufti Abdul Ghani (PLD 1985 SC 1) to contend that the principle that the enant forfeits his tenancy by the denial of title of his landlord is not applicable o proceedings under the Rent Restriction Laws.
12. This argument is unexceptionable in view of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the above-cited cases. It cannot be laid down as a principle f universal applicability that in all cases where denial of tenancy is found to be alse, an order of ejectment must necessarily follow without holding any further proceeding. The question as to whether after the decision of the preliminary issue as to the existence of relationship of landlord and statement between the parties, further inquiry into the grounds on which ejectment of the tenant is thought is called for depends upon the facts of each case. If in the written statement filed by the tenant, he not only disputes the title of the landlord to the property but also denies his entitlement to receive the rent without leading the payment of rent, holding of further inquiry would be an exercise in futility. The present case, however, stands on a different footing. In the written statement filed by the respondent, it was specifically asserted that tessers Travel Kings (Private) Limited was not a defaulter and had paid rent the landlady. It stands established on the record that previously, the landlady as been accepting the rent from Travel Kings (Private) Limited. It was, therefore, necessary for the Rent Controller to decide as to whether the rent of the disputed period had been paid tendered by Travel Kings (Private) Limited ad if so, with what effect. An order of ejectment without holding an inquiry into the allegations of default and personal need was wholly uncalled for. As a result of what has been stated above, the appeal is accepted, the npugned orders are set aside and the case is remanded to the Rent controller for decision afresh after framing the issues on merits and allowing the parties to produce evidence.
' As the ejectment petition was filed about six years ago, it is directed at the same shall be decided by the Rent Controller before 31st March, 1993, necessary by holding day to day proceedings.
' The parties shall appear before the District Judge, Lahore, on 25-1-1993, who shall entrust the ejectment petition to a Rent Controller of competent jurisdiction.