FAZAL KARIM, J.- The appellants, Ashraf Ali, Akbar Ali and Muhammad Riaz, have appealed against the order of the Additional Rent Controller, Lahore cantonment, dated 103.1990, made under Section 17 of the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act 1963, directing the appellants, Ashraf Ali and Akbar Ali, "to hand over the vacant possession of the disputed shop to the petitioner (Asghar Ali, respondent herein) within 02 months from the date of this order".
2. The shop in question admittedly belongs to the respondent, Asghar Ali. He sought eviction of the appellants, Ashraf Ali and Akbar Ali, who are real brothers. According to him, they were his tenants and were liable to be evicted on the grounds i) that they had failed to pay or tender rent for the period from 1.11.1983 to 28.2.1986 at the agreed rate of Rs.700/- per mensem; ii) that they had, in violation of the terms and conditions of the tenancy, "sublet and parted with the possession of the shop in favour of their brother in law Muhammad Riaz and iii) that he needed the shop in good faith for his own use and occupation. The appellants, Ashraf Ali and Akbar Ali, entered appearance and filed a written statement, denying that relationship of landlord and tenant existed between them and the respondent. According to them, "one Riaz" was in occupation of the shop as a tenant.
As they were n6t the respondent's tenants, "the question of non payment of the rent or arrears payable does not at all arise." They said that "the petitioner once contacted the respondents and requested that the shop in possession of Muhammad Riaz tenant be got vacated through good offices of the respondents because the petitioner did not want to seek remedy against the tenants in the court of the Rent Controller, but when the respondents approached the tenant Muhammad Riaz along with the petitioner who refused to vacate the shop because in his opinion neither he was a defaulter, sub letter and nor the personal need of the petitioner is bonafide."
3. Thus, the parties were at issue on one point only, namely, "whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties."
4. It ought to be mentioned here that the eviction petition was instituted on 10.3.1986. As late as 8.6.1988, Muhammad Riaz, Appellant, (brother-in-law of Ashraf Ali and Akbar Ali, appellants, but described as "one Riaz"in their written statements) made an application to be joined as a respondent before the Rent Controller but that application was rejected by the Rent Controller's order dated 29.6.1988 on the ground that the application had been made after the evidence of the landlord had been recorded. It appears that the appellant, Muhammad Riaz, was content to allow the matter to rest there till the eviction order was made. He then joined Ashraf Ali and Akbar Ali as appellants. By Section 24 of the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963, the right of appeal vests in a party aggrieved by an order of the Rent Controller. It is now well settled that "it is only the parties before the Rent Controller, the landlord and the tenant, who can bring the matter before the higher Appellate Authority designated under the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance".(Mistri Allah Din Vs. Fazal Muhammad and another PLD 1991 SC 52). On this short ground, the appeal of Muhammad Riaz, appellant, is liable to be dismissed.
5. On the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant, the respondent, Asghar Ali, appeared into the witness-box and called two witnesses, namely, Wali Muhammad and Haji Bashir Ahmad But. As his own witness, the respondent stated that the appellant, Ashraf Ali and Akbar Ali, had been in possession of the shop for 20 & 22 years as tenants. He had let them into the shop as tenants. To begin with, the rent was Rs. 120/- per mensem. Later on, it was raised to Rs. 700/- per mensem.
Muhammad Riaz, appellant, is married to a sister of Ashraf Ali and Akbar Ali, appellants. He added that he had approached Ashraf Ali and Akbar Ali, appellants, for the vacation of the shop through the respectables, Wali Muhammad and Haji Bashir Ahmad Butt, but they had been asking for time to vacate. Wali Muhammad and Haji Bashir Ahmad Butt, who were completely independent and dis-interested witnesses, testified that they had meetings with Ashraf Ali, appellant, for the vacation of the shop and that Ashraf Ali, appellant, had promised to vacate the shop and had been asking for time. No reason was suggested why these two persons should perjure themselves for the respondent. On the other hand, the appellants, Ashraf Ali and Muhammad Riaz, entered into the witness-box to say that Muhammad Riaz, appellant, was the tenant of the shop and was doing his independent business there. According to them, Ashraf Ali and Akbar Ali had their business in the adjoining shop. They called Muhammad Siddique (RW1), who testified that he had been seeing Muhammad Riaz, appellant, in possession of the shop for the last 18 or 20 years. He, however, admitted in cross-examination that it was the appellant, Muhammad Riaz, who had told him that he was paying Rs. 700/- as rent. He admitted also that the shop had been given to him by his father-in-law, although later he said that it was his father-in-law who had obtained the shop for him. This admission, made perhaps unsittingly brought out the truth, that the real tenants were Ashraf Ali and Akbar Ali or their father. In this state of evidence, the testimony of the respondent that his tenants were Ashraf Ali and Akbar Ali supported as it was by that of his witnesses, Wali Muhammad and Haji Bashir Ahmad Butt, who, as has been noted above, were completely independent and dis-interested witnesses, was sufficient to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent and Ashraf Ali and Akbar Ali. (See Abdul Hameed V. Abdul Rashid 1981SCMR 572).
6. For these reasons, there is no merit in the appeal. It is dismissed but the parties are left to bear their own costs.