' SAJJAD ALI SHAH, C.J.---In these three petitions, seeking leave to appeal, facts and points of law involved are cannon and, therefore, they are being considered and heard together.
2. Nawab Din and 58 other claimants purchased property containing 285 tenements for Rs,5,71,000 and in consequence P.T.O. Was issued on 17-12-1959 and possession was also handed over as full price was paid.
3. C.P. 182-K/94 arises from Rent Case No,257 of 1987 which was filed on the ground of default and personal need. In the written statement plea was taken by the tenant that in 1982 Nawab Din demanded rent, who was asked to give proof of title, and thereafter rent was deposited in M.R.C.
3922/82 at the rate of Rs, 139 per month. Tenant also took the stand that he purchased share of Salamullah Khan vide unregistered Sale Agreement dated 15-6-1987. The learned Rent Controller vide order dated 3-8-1988 came to the conclusion that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and in consequence eviction was refused and F.R.A. No, 740/88 was filed in the High Court.
4. C.P. 183-1(194 arises from Rent Case No,1508/86. At the time of transfer, S.M. Razi f(azmi (father of tenant) was in occupation as statutory tenant and he challenged the transfer in the Constitutional petition in the High Court, which was dismissed in 1977. Petition was filed in the Supreme Court for leave to appeal. In the rent case tenant in the written statement stated that his father was statutory tenant of Nawab Din and took objection that other co-owners were not joined in the proceedings. All issues including that of relationship were found in favors of the landlord and eviction granted vide order dated 12-7-1993. Tenant filed F.R.A. No, 356/93 in the High Court.
5. C.P. 184-K/94 arises from Rent Case No,258/87 in which S.M. Razi Kazmi in occupation challenged the transfer in the High Court and Supreme Court. Tenant took further plea that he purchased share of Mst. Ulfat Begum through her legal heirs, and therefore, himself became co-owner. All issues including relationship were found in favors of the landlord and eviction was granted vide order dated 12-7-1993. Tenant filed F.R.A. No, 357/93 in the High Court.
6. The High Court after hearing F.R.A. No,740/88, adjourned it sine die vide order dated 3-12-1991 and directed the landlord to obtain from concerned authorities Permanent Transfer Deed of the property, which was transferred to him, and also to get the property properly demarcated. Abdul Ghani, landlord, filed Petition No,66-K/92 in this Court seeking leave to appeal, which was converted into Civil Appeal No,53 of 1993 and allowed vide judgment dated 10-3-1992 and in the result the case was remanded to the High Court for decision according to law as it was not covered by 1983 SCM R 1064. After that Civil Review Petition No,29-K/92 was filed, which was disposed of with deletion of one sentence from the judgment of this Court which was sought to be reviewed.
7. After remand in terms stated above, the High Court again became seized of F.R.A. 740/88, which was taken up for hearing along with two other appeals filed as F.R.As. Nos.356/93 and 357/93 and were disposed of by common judgment dated 4-5-1994 which is impugned in the present three petitions before us. The High Court has finally dismissed F.R.A. 740/88 in which eviction was not granted by the Rent Controller and has allowed F.I.As. Nos. 356/93 and 357/93 in which eviction was granted by the Rent Controller.
8. Contentions raised before us on behalf of the landlords are that firstly there was sufficient evidence available in the rent proceedings that the landlords were entitled to receive rent and were covered by the definition of landlord as contemplated in section 2(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. Secondly, if tenant disputes relationship and claims title to the property, them it is for him to have question settled by the Civil Court. Thirdly plea of the tenant that disputed premises were purchased by him is not reflected in the pleadings and, therefore, no issue was framed with regard to it in the rent proceedings, which could he concluded as permitted in the relevant law. Fourthly, directions in the impugned judgment given to the landlords/petitioners before us to obtain P.T.D. And to have property demarcated are outside the scope of rent proceedings as defined in the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. Fifthly, whether P.T.O. Is not sufficient to entitle landlord to claim rent as contemplated under the provisions of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979.
9. Leave is granted to examine the record of the cases in the light of the contentions mentioned above.