' This appeal under section 24 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 is directed against order, dated 15-4-1992 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Lahore Cantonment, through which ejectment application filed by the appellant against respondent has been dismissed.
2. The appellant sought eviction of the respondent from the property in dispute on the ground of default in the payment of rent since 1-1-1989 at the rate of Rs,100 p.m., subletting and requirement of the same in good faith for personal use. It was contested by the respondent who pleaded that he was in possession of the property in dispute as owner having been purchased from one Muhammad Ishaq, as such the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties. The Additional Rent Controller, Cantonment framed the following preliminary issue:--- "Whether relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties? OPP."
' In support of his case the petitioner examined himself as his own witness. He produced in evidence copy of sale-deed as Exh.P.1, copy of register Haqdaran as Exh.P2, copy of Aks Shajra Exh.P.3, copy of an application filed by the appellant before the Revenue Officer for Hadbandi on 22-4-1991 as Exh.P4 and copy of order dated 30-4-1991 passed by Revenue Officer regarding Hadbandi as Exh.P.5.
3. On the other hand respondent neither appeared and examined himself as his own witness nor examined any other witness. He produced in evidence photostat copies of sale-deed Exh.R1 and closed his evidence.
4. The Additional Rent Controller through order, dated 15-4-1992 dismissed the ejectment petition by observing that since the question of title had been raised and both the parties claimed to be the owners of the property therefore, it was a fit case to direct the appellant to get the question of title settled and decided from Civil Court which has been appealed against.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that no evidence in rebuttal was produced by the respondent who himself also did not appear as his witness and the photostat copy of sale-deed produced as Exh.R.1 being inadmissible and the admissibility of the same in evidence was duly objected to when it was produced, therefore, the evidence of the appellant having gone unrebutted through which it has established beyond reasonable doubt that he as owner was entitled to receive rent, therefore, he was the landlord.
6. I have examined the record and after undertaking close scrutiny of the evidence produced by the appellant, I am not convinced that he had succeeded in establishing beyond reasonable doubt his title, in the property and his evidence even if taken into consideration as having remained unrebutted, does not prove his case.
7. Sale-deed Exh.P1 through which the appellant claims to have purchased the property is dated 28-10-1964. Abdul Hamid is the vendor and it is evident from this document read with Exh.P.2 copy of register Haqdaran, that it was land measuring 9 Marlas comprising IChasra number 4613/194 which was purchased by him. According to statement of the appellant he constructed the property in dispute over the said land about 12 years prior to the said statement. He stated in his evidence that the respondent was his tenant. Nothing was stated as to when the respondent was inducted in the premises under the agreement of tenancy and as to what was the rate of rent settled. Though in the ejectment petition it was stated that the rate of rent was Rs,100 P.M. But no evidence was produced that the respondent was inducted in the premises under agreement of tenancy at the said monthly rate by him. Exhebit P.2 only shows that mutation was sanctioned in favour of the appellant in pursuance of the said sale-deed regarding the said land. No evidence was produced that he constructed the said property over the said land and his bald statement unsupported by any other evidence even if taken as such does not establish his case as the same does not inspire confidence for he expressed his ignorance about the necessary particulars of the construction raised by him when questioned in cross-examination, saying that the respondent had been effecting changes in it.
8. Regarding Hadbandi proceedings it may be stated that the application was made by the appellant for Hadbandi on 22-4-1991 and if the case of the appellant was that he had constructed the property over the said piece of land purchased by him about which he had no doubt about the identity and location of the same at the relevant time when allegedly rented out to the respondent, there was no reason to get the same demarcated in the year 1991 after a period of about 27 years and it appears that this application was motivated to create evidence to connect the land purchased by the appellant with the property occupied by the respondent. Apart from this, from the copies of Hadbandi proceedings it is clear that the respondent was not joined in those proceedings, issued any notice and given opportunity to place his case before the Revenue Officer.
9. It has been held by the Supreme Court in a case reported in Province of Punjab through Education Secretary and another v. Mufti Abdul Ghani PLD 1985 SC 1 that where the status of landlord was claimed on the basis of ownership, of property by the petitioner in a ejectment petition he was required to establish beyond reasonable doubt that he was the owner of the property in dispute. The criteria laid down by the Supreme Court in this case after examining the evidence produced by the appellant is not satisfied and this was eminently a fit case for requiring the appellant to get the matter settled by the Civil Court by filing a suit as a serious question had arisen as to whether the property in possession of the respondent was the same which was purchased by the appellant through sale-deed Exh.P.1.
10. For the reasons given above, even if the respondent is held to have not entered appearance he evidence produced by the appellant if taken as it is, the same is not sufficient to discharge the onus of the issue placed on the appellant.
11. For the foregoing reasons, the order impugned in this appeal does not suffer from any illegality.
The appeal has no merits which is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.