1. ' Second rent appeal under section 15(6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 as amended was from a decision given in appeal by learned Additional District Judge, Lahore by which decision of learned Rent Controller, Lahore directing ejectment of the appellants from a shop in property No,D-1478, Bazar Vachhowali, Lahore City was affirmed and maintained.
2. ' Facts bearing on the decision of the second appeal briefly set out were:--Property bearing Survey No,D-1478 situated in Bazar Vochhowali of Lahore City was an evacuee property. Shop in question was a part of it. In course of settlement operations, above property was transferred to Muhammad Yaqoob and Din Muhammad by the Settlement Department. P.T.O. Was issued in their favour on 25-3-1963 and the P.T.D. On 12-3-1966. They sold the property transferred to-them to Mst. Kaneez Bibi on 6-4-1968. In turn, she further sold it to the respondents on 23-5-1992 through a registered deed of even date. The purchasers gave a notice under section 13-A of the Rent Ordinance to the appellants to acknowledge them owners of the shop and for payment of rent. In default of a satisfactory response, they instituted an ejectment petition against the appellants for their eviction from the shop in question on grounds of rent default etc., on 6-10-1993, in the Court of a Rent Controller at Lahore. Upon being served, appellants submitted their written statement of defence; denied tenancy in the shop under the respondents. It was submitted that the property was evacuee trust property; tenancy relationship did not exist between the parties and the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the ejectment petition. Rent Controller settled following preliminary issues for determination:--
(1) Whether this Rent Tribunal has got no jurisdiction to try this ejectment petition?
(2) Whether there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties?
(3) Order.
3. ' Both sides gave evidence. It consisted of oral depositions of witnesses and a few documents.
4. Upon scrutiny of record, it was found that jurisdiction with the Rent Controller existed and the tenancy relationship was established. Both the preliminary issues were answered in favour of the respondents. Since non-payment of rent to the respondents was admitted, further inquiry into the grounds of ejectment was dispensed with and an order for ejectment of the appellants from the shop followed the decision on the preliminary issues 9n 30-4-1994 by the learned Rent Controller.
5. He gave them one month from the date of his decision to vacate and hand over the possession of the shop in question to the respondents. In appeal by the appellants, decision of the Rent Controller was maintained on 3-10-1994 by learned Additional District Judge, Lahore who gave them one month further for vacating possession of the shop in favour of respondents. Dissatisfied with the decision given in appeal, a further appeal was filed in this Court through Malik Muhammad Azam Rasul, Advocate. He was heard on merits of the appeal. Only ground urged by him was that since the reference about the character of the transferred-property was sub judice before the Chairman, Evacuee Trust Property Board, Rent Controller was bereft of jurisdiction to adjudicate the ejectment case and the proper course for him was to stay away from the ejectment case till after the final adjudication on the character of the evacuee trust property and its bona fide transfer under the Settlement Laws by the Chairman of the Evacuee Trust Property Board. The Court was invited to the case of Mst. Mariam Bi and 2 others v. The Islamic Republic of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Religious and Minority Affairs and 4 others PLD 1990 Kar. 427, approved by the Lordships of the Supreme Court in their decision reported as 1993 SCMR 515. It was urged that fmal decision about the character of the transferred property; whether it was evacuee trust property or otherwise and its bona fide transfer under the Settlement Laws rested in the decision of the Chairman of Evacuee Trust Property Board under section 10 of the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal)
6. Act, 1975 and, therefore, the Rent Controller, in presence of a pending reference before the Chairman was not possessed of any jurisdiction to proceed with the final decision of the ejectment case. It was not disputed that if the contention was not sustained and it was found that the property was actually transferred to its transferees and purchased by the respondents in due course, the appellants shall be deemed to hold it as tenants liable to pay monthly rent to the owners. It may be noticed that the factum of transfer of the property and its purchase by the respondents were not in question between the parties. It was further not in dispute that the Chairman, Evacuee Trust Property Board had as yet not finally resolved upon the character of the evacuee property and its bona fide transfer by the Settlement Department. Briefly put, P.T.O., P.T.D.
7. Issued in due course by. The Settlement Authorities still held the field and were not declared invalid.
8. Under section 17 of the Act ibid, the decision of the Chairman was revisable by the Federal Government. Furthermore, the decision by the Federal Government in revision, within the confines of law, was subject to judicial review in extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court. Obviously, Rent Controller was incompetent to ignore and bypass the transfer documents issued by the Settlement Department. Consequently, P.T.O. And P.T.D. Were immune from his scrutiny in summary jurisdiction envisaged for trial of ejectment cases. Appellants claimed tenancy of the shop under the Evacuee Trust Property Board and pleaded payment of rent to it. However, they gave no proof of either tenancy under the Board or payment of rent to it. Furthermore, the Evacuee Trust Property Board did not choose to intervene for becoming a party to the ejectment case. It did not prefer an appeal from the adverse judgment of the Rent Controller either. Appellants were unnecessarily endeavouring to plead title in a third party for taking shelter under it. Till P.T.O. And P.T.D. Held the field, sale of the property in question made on its basis could not have been ignored for precluding the respondents for deriving benefits of their ownership rights of the shop in question. Reference to the case of Chaudhry Ghulam Muhammad v. Khalid Mahmood and 7 others PLD 1977 Lah. 1110 shall be helpful. Upon this view of the record and the law, impugned orders could not be termed faulty or infirm. Sole ground taken for invalidating the ejectment orders, therefore, must fail. As a result of it, second appeal is dismissed in limine. Appellants are allowed two months to vacate subject to payment of due rent by them in time. Original records shall be returned.