An ejectment application was brought before Mr. Khalil Ahmad Anwar, learned Rent Controller, Lahore but it was dismissed on 26-10-1981 when it was found that the relationship of landlord and tenant was not proved between the parties. In appeal Mr. Muhammad Sarfraz Cheema, learned Additional District Judge, Lahore has reversed the findings and has ordered the ejectment of the petitioner vide his order dated 1-7-1982. The petitioner has brought this writ petition on the ground that the learned Additional District Judge had wrongly assumed jurisdiction.
2. The case of the landlord is that the house in question was purchased by him from Mst. Munni Begum, his mother-in-law. Mst. Munni Begum had earlier rented out this property to the petitioner through a written rent note of 25-10-1971. Umar Hayat gave a notice under section 13-A of the Rent Restriction Ordinance to the present petitioner but he denied his liability to pay. The case of the petitioner is that he did obtain a house from Mst. Munni Begum on rent through rent note of 25-10- 1971 but he gave up his possession in 1973. It is claimed by him that the house now in occupation .of the petitioner was built on a plot of land which the petitioner purchased from one Abdul Basit in 1965. The case of the petitioner is that he is not a tenant under Umar Hayat in respect of the property now in his possession. On the contrary according to him the house belongs to the present petitioner.
3. The rent note having been admitted by the petitioner the entire inquiry therefore revolved around the question of the identity of the property. In this connection the landlord produced Muhammad Anwar Saeed A.W.1. He stated that it was he who arranged leasing of the property from Mst. Munni Begum to the present petitioner. He also submits that a rent note was written but surprisingly he has not signed the rent note. A.W.2 supports A.W.1. A.W.3 is the scribe who wrote the rent note. He supports the landlord but it is strange that the rent note was not witnessed by anyone. What is more important is that the property described in the rent note can be termed only as a casual description without correctly identifying the property. It talks of a house with two rooms located in Rehmat Colony Mustafa Abad (Dharampura), Lahore; the rent fixed is Rs.50. Mst. Munni Begum herself had purchased this property a few months earlier from Mst. Noor Jahan Begum A.W.5. On 9- 1-1971 Mst. Noor Jahan Begum sold this property to Mst. Munni Begum and on 10-1-1971 she executed a rent note in favour of Mst. Munni Begum as she continued to stay in the property. She agreed to pay rent of Rs.60 p.m. The significant aspect of the transaction between Mst. Noor Jahan and Mst. Munni Begum and-the rent note between Mst. Munni Begum and the present petitioner is that while property is adequately described in the former document as 34/A, Nai Basti Main Bazar, Dharampura, the rent note described the property only as house in Rehmat Colony, Mustafa Abad (Dharampura); the property number is not given. The word Nai Basti may or may not have adopted the name of Rehmat Colony in the meantime but one aspect cannot escape notice, namely the rate of rent. In January 1971 Mst. Noor Jahan agreed to pay Rs.60 but in October 1971 when the petitioner is said to have been inducted into the property the rent was reduced to Rs.50. The reduction in rent, firstly, is not in keeping with the trend in the market which has an upward trend and secondly while Mst. Noor Jahan was already in occupation of the property, the present petitioner, was being inducted, as a fresh tenant, and there was a better opportunity of claiming a higher rent from the fresh tenant as compared to a sitting occupant.
4. The learned Additional District Judge appears to have been impressed by the service of the petitioner on the address given by the landlord in the ejectment petition. This by itself can be no circumstance. The petitioner and the respondent both live in the same locality and the service upon the petitioner of the process from the Rent Controller does not by itself determine the identity of the propertywhich is the sole question in the litigation.
5. The houses built in the locality appear to be of encroachments as the land underneath belongs to the Railways. The numbering of the property, the streets and even the names of the locality have not been fixed by any competent authority and presumably had undergone changes from time to time. Plot No. 89 said to have been purchased by the petitioner in 1965 may or may not have retained its number. Similarly Nai Basti and Rehmat Colony may or may not be the same colony. Of course judicial notice can be taken of the change of name of Dharampura to Mustafabad but the remaining questions relating to the identity of the property are such which have a direct bearing on the title to the, property. The Special Tribunal is entitled to hold an inquiry into the question of title because that determines his jurisdiction but when the question of title becomes so complex, as in my view is the present case, the Special Tribunal should stay his hands and refer the matter to the competent Court. In the present case it is the question of title precisely which was the core question in the litigation before the Rent Controller. The kind of evidence produced has resulted only in confusion. It was proper, therefore, for the Rent Controller to have left the question to the Civil Court.
In view of the above considerations the writ petition is allowed. The orders of the Additional District Judge dated 1-7-1982 are declared to be of no legal effect. The landlord is, however, at liberty to establish his title to the property before a Court of competent jurisdiction. There shall be no order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.