' Through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 Niamat Ali and Muhammad Hand have challenged the legality and propriety of order dated 8-10- 1990 of Additional District Judge, Sialkot dismissing their appeal as also the appeal of Naseeb-ud- Din respondent No, 4 herein, under section 15 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (No, VI of 1959), hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance, against the order dated 26-11-1988 of Rent Controller, Daska.
2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the instant petition are that Muhammad Gulzar respondent, hereinafter referred to as landlord, filed an ejectment application under section 13 of the Ordinance, with regard to Shop No,2398 situated in Sabzi Mandi, College Road, Kot Daska against the petitioners as also their brother Muhammad Sadiq and Naseeb-ud-Din, respondent No,4. The landlord had claimed to be the transferee of Shop No,2398 from the Settlement Department vide Transfer Deed No, 72806, dated 31-7-1975. His case was that Niamat All petitioner No, 1 was in occupation of the disputed shop at monthly rent of Rs,800 but he had transferred its possession in favour of the rest of the respondents in the ejectment petition, without his consent. The respondents are defaulters from March, 1985. The landlord requires the disputed premises for his personal use and as the same is in a dilapidated condition, requiring re-construction, he has got approved a plan in that behalf from the Municipal authorities.
3. Muhammad Sadiq, having proceeded abroad, was deleted from the array of parties vide order dated 4-5-1988 under a statement in writing by the landlord. The petitioners and Naseeb-ud-Din respondent contested the application of the landlord. They, inter alia, contended that they were in possession of Shop No, 2397, to which the landlord has no title as owner to entitle him to the status of landlord under the Rent Laws. They claimed that one Mst. Waheedan had rented out the premises, in their possession, on monthly rent of Rs,50 and they have been making the payment of rent to her for about 19/20 years. Afterwards, one Nazar Muhammad and Abdul Rashid also started claiming ownership of the disputed premises and for this reason, they were constrained to make an application to the concerned Rent Controller in the year 1978, making all the claimants as respondents therein and on the said application being allowed by the Rent Controller, they started depositing the rent in Government treasury. The relationship of landlord was specifically denied by the petitioners qua the landlord.
4. Naseeb-ud-Din respondent, through his separate written statement, also pleaded that the property detailed in the ejectment petition was actually Property No, 2397 and Muhammad Gulzar was not his landlord.
5. The divergent pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following preliminary issue:--- "Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties qua the property?
O.P.P."
' At the trial, Abdul Rashid, General Attorney of the landlord, appeared in support of his case as A.W.1. He also tendered in evidence as many as ten, documents in support of the case of the landlord that the disputed shop premises were purchased by him in an open auction held on 2-12- 1969; a T.O. Was issued in his name by the Settlement Department on 30-7-1975 and that transfer documents in relation to Property No,2397-Daska were issued by the Settlement Department in favour of Chaudhry Nazar Muhammad, Advocate.
6. Niamat All petitioner appeared as R.W. 1 and stated that Property No,2397 was a 'garage' and the same had been let out to him, and his brothers by Mst. Waheedan. He did not know that Shop No,2397 had been transferred to the landlord. In cross-examination he admitted that the adjoining `Kothi', which was allotted to M/s. Nazar Muhammad etc. Had been purchased by Master Nazir and Aminul Malik and both the vendees having demolished its superstructure, had reconstructed a shopping centre on the spot. Between the disputed property and the shopping centre, there exists a lane and on its southern side the said Aminul Malik was having his shops. He also admitted that the site plan ExhA/10, was correct and the shopping centre and the disputed shop were independent entities. He identified the suit property as ABCD in the site Plan ExhA/10 and further conceded that Nazar Muhammad, the transferee of the adjoining `kothi also used to claim that property marked ABCD in the site plan was his own and it was on account of such claim of the said Nazar Muhammad that the petitioners started depositing rent in Court. He also admitted as correct the assertion of the landlord that the disputed property was a 'garage' of the said 'Kothi'. The petitioners also brought on the record copies of the receipts as Exhs.R-3 to R-12, indicating deposit of rent by them in the names of aforereferred Mst. Waheedan, Abdul Rashid and Nazar Muhammad.
7. Naseeb-ud-Din respondent appeared as R.W.2 simply to plead his possession but showed ignorance about the ownership of the landlord. However, he deposed that none of the respondents in the ejectment petition, including himself, had title to the disputed property. In his cross- examination he admitted that the loth? Transferred to Nazar Muhammad, Advocate belonged to Panjumal evacuee and that it was independent of the disputed property. Nazar Muhammad Advocate disposed of his loth? In favour of Aminul Malik and others wherein the shopping centre has been raised, without touching the disputed premises.
8. After considering the evidence and hearing the parties through their learned counsel, the learned Rent Controller, Daska decided the preliminary issue in favour of the landlord observing, inter alia, that "....The evidence discussed above, indicates with clarity that property possessed by the respondents is bearing No,2398 and it had no concern for title either with Nazar Muhammad, Advocate, or the vendees thereunder being Aminul Malik etc. This property stands positively transferred in the name of Muhammad Gulzar petitioner and the respondents have contumaciously denied the status of their landlord. Therefore, J hold the issue in the terms that the petitioner being landlord, the respondents possessing the suit property whether jointly or otherwise, have wilfully and contumaciously denied their tenancy under the petitioner and thus they are not entitled to any further proceedings but an order of ejectment. Accordingly, the issue being decided in favour of the petitioner, the ejectment petition in itself is allowed with a direction to the respondents to vacate the suit property within a period of one month, with no order as to costs."
This happened on 26-11-1988.
9. Feeling aggrieved of the- order of the Rent Controller dated 26-11-1988, both the petitioners and Naseeb-ud-Din respondent No,4 filed two separate appeals thereagainst which were disposed of by Mr. Muhammad Aslam Khan, Additional District Judge, Siallcot vide his order dated 8-10-1990.
He upheld the fmdings of the learned Rent Controller under Issue No,1 with the observation that the title of the landlord cannot be disputed and the plea raised on behalf of the petitioners and Naseeb-ud-Din respondent is misconceived. It was observed that receipts Exhs.R-3 to R-12 indicating the deposit of the rent of the property in dispute in the name of Mst. Waheedan etc. Was contradicted by Niamat All petitioner himself, while appearing as R.W.1, when he deposed that the rent was being deposited in the name of Nazar Muhammad, Mst. Waheedan, Abdul Rashid and Gulzar Ahmed jointly which, to say the least, show that the petitioners had the knowledge about the ownership of Gulzar Ahmed landlord and that Abdul Rashid (A.W.1) was his attorney. In the absence of any dispute regarding the transfer of the shop in question to the landlord by the Settlement Department, it was further observed, that Property No,2398 ...Had no concern with Nazar Muhammad or any other person except the respondent Muhammad Gulzar and that the appellants have denied the status of their landlord on the basis of an unfounded plea".
10. Hence this petition.
11. The only contention raised in rupport of this petition on behalf of the petitioners is that the concurrent fmdings rendered by both the Courts below, favouring the respondent landlord, are the result of misreading of material evidence on the record. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the property in possession of the petitioners bore No,2397 and the same having been transferred to Nazar Muhammad Chaudhry, they (the petitioners) had been making the payment of rental to the transferee and/or others entitled thereto. The contention was that denial of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioners and the landlord was not contumacious, and therefore, they could not be ejected and instead the respondent landlord should have been directed to have his title cleared from the Civil Courts in terms of case reported as Rehmatullah v. All Muhammad and another 1983 SCM R 1064. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioners has been controverted by Khawaja Muhammad Taseer, Advocate on behalf of respondent No,3. He has argued that" the ratio in the precedent case is not applicable to the instant case and that in the absence of any jurisdictional error in the judgments rendered by the Courts below in the exercise of their jurisdiction under sections 13 and 15 of the Ordinance, the instant petition is liable to be dismissed.
12. I have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and have also perused the available material, with the help of the learned counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioners was unable to point out any misreading on the part of the learned Rent Controller and the learned Additional District Judge in resolving the preliminary issue in favour of the landlord. The observations regarding the contumacious conduct of the petitioners and Naseeb-ud-Din respondent, in the matter of denying their tenancy under the landlord, are duly supported by the material brought on the record. The admissions made by Niamat All petitioner and Naseeb-ud-Din respondent under cross-examination as R.Ws. 1 and 2 have been properly considered by the learned Rent Controller, Daska and the learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot. In the presence of the admission by Niamat Ali petitioner and Naseebud-Din respondent that Bungalow No,2397 and disputed Shop No,2398 are separate entities and that they have been transferred by the Settlement Department to Nazar Muhammad and the landlord, respectively, no fault can be found with the impugned orders to justify interference therewith in these proceedings.
13. As regards the plea raised on behalf of the petitioners, purportedly supported by Rehmatullah's case, suffice it to say that the ratio in the precedent case is not at all attracted in the instant case.
The petitioners had admitted the transfer of the disputed shop by the Settlement Department to the landlord and their sticking to the denial of the relationship of landlord and tenant between themselves and, the landlord, can hardly be equated with raising a genuine dispute about the title of the landlord to the disputed property. This plea was also raised on their behalf before the learned Additional District Judge who repelled the same on sound grounds. No illegality, much less any jurisdictional error, has been even so much as alleged by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the matter of the resolution of the dispute in that behalf by the learned Additional District Judge.
14. For all that has been said above, this petition is devoid of any merit and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.