' This second appeal is directed to challenge the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller, Swat and District Judge, Dir Camp Swat, that the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties and because the relationship was denied, the tenant-appellant herein, was liable to be ejected from the suit shop.
2. Haji Amir Sultan, the landlord respondent herein, submitted an application under section 13 of the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance to the Controller Swat for ejectment of the tenant Zarin, appellant herein on the ground of default in payment of rent and personal requirement of the house. The application was contested by the appellant herein. On the preliminary issue framed with respect to the relationship of the parties, the Rent Controller recorded evidence of the parties and then decided the issue in favour of the landlord on 31-10-1985 and the case was adjourned for deciding the rent dispute. The landlord respondent went in appeal against the order dated 31-10- 1985 of the learned Rent Controller contending that Rent Controller should have passed the ejectment order without further proceedings as the tenant denied the title of the landlord. The learned District Judge, Swat who heard the appeal placing reliance on the case of Muhammad Anwar and others v. Mst. Balqees Begum and ethers (1984 CLC 1506 (Lahore), dismissed the appeal. He directed the parties to appear in the lower Court on 5-2-1986. After the case was received by the Rent Controller, he recorded evidence of the parties which they wished to be recorded and then on perusal of the evidence he came to the conclusion that the tenant had the knowledge of the transfer of the suit house in the name of the landlord and he having not paid the rent to him after he became the owner and denying his title was to be ejected from the house. The learned Rent Controller vide order dated 6-7-1991 directed the tenant to vacate the house and hand over its possession to the landlord Haji Amir Sultan respondent herein and in case of failure to vacate the house he will be ejected through the process of the Court if so desired by the landlord respondent. This order dated 6-7-1991 was again challenged in appeal before the learned District Judge, Dir Camp, Swat who vide judgment dated 8-7-1993 dismissed the appeal as he found no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. The tenant appellant has now come to this Court in second appeal.
3. Mian Iqbal Hussain, Advocate, for the appellant and Mr. Isa Khan, Advocate, for the respondent who on the last date of hearing of the appeal opposed each other about the extension of amendment in the Rent Restriction Ordinance to Swat have today agreed that amendment was not extended and that second appeal is maintainable. Therefore, they addressed arguments on merits. Mian Iqbal Hussain, Advocate, for the appellant argued that findings of ejectment on the basis of denial of relationship of landlord and tenant are illegal inasmuch as the Rent Controller under the law was bound to have framed issue with respect to default in payment of rent and only on proof of issue that default was made, ejectment order could be passed. He next contended that under section 13-A of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, the tenant shall not be deemed to have defaulted in payment of rent if the new owner did not intimate him of the transfer of ownership in writing by registered post.
4. Mr. Isa Khan, Advocate, for the landlord respondent in reply argued that concurrent findings of the lower Courts cannot be challenged in second appeal. 1988 MLD 1974 (Karachi) was referred. He then cited the case of Muhammad Khalid v. Mansoor Hafiz (1989 M LD 4240 (Lahore)) and Akbar Ali Khan Mirza v. Additional District Judge and another (1989 MLD 1310 (Lahore)) in support of his contention that the. Rent Controller is justified in forfeiting tenancy consequent upon deciding the only issue of existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case-law cited at the Bar.
The two Courts below have given findings against tenant appellant that having denied the ownership of the landlord-respondent he was liable to be ejected from the suit house. The findings do not appear to be perverse or the result of misreading of evidence or wrong application of law. In Muhammad Mahmood v. Fazlur Rehman (1986 M LD 902) scope of interference under section 15(4) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance was held to be confined to those cases alone where finding is based on misreading of evidence or finding had been arrived at in ignorance of material piece of evidence on record or appraisal of evidence is shown to be perverse. In the present case the concurrent findings of the Courts do not appear to be perverse calling for interference in second appeal under section 15(4) of the Ordinance.
' In Muhammad Khalid v. Mansoor Hafiz (1989 M LD 4240 Lahore), it is held that Rent Controller would be justified in forfeiting tenancy consequent upon deciding the solitary issue of existence of relationship of landlord and tenant and question of any further inquiry or any other issue would be uncalled for. Similarly in Akbar Ali Khan Mirza v. Additional District Judge and another (1989 MLD 1310 Lahore) it is held that when controversy regarding relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties stood finally decided and petitioner is held to be a tenant under respondent despite denial of the former, no useful purpose would be served by framing issue on question of default in payment of rent and interference in the order passed by the Courts below was declined, for, default in payment of rent was established on the basis of available record. In Muhammad Anwar and others v. Mst. Balqees Begum and others (1984 CLC 1506 Lahore) it is held that denial of title without pleading payment is sufficient to order ejectment. In the instant case appellant's default is established on the record. He did not pay the rent to the respondent-landlord despite the fact that he had the knowledge of the transfer of the house in favour of the respondent. He pre-empted the sale of the house instead of paying rent to him. The concurrent findings of the Courts below do not suffer from any illegality or irregularity calling for interference in second appeal. Hence this appeal is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.