' Through this Constitutional petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 9-7-1995 passed by the learned District Judge, Multan whereby he set aside the judgment dated 6-12-1994 passed by the Rent Controller, Multan through which he had dismissed the ejectment petition filed by the respondent-applicant with regard to house No, 7110/9-F, New Shadman Colony, Jail Road, Multan.
2. Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the respondent-applicant filed an ejectment petition with regard to the aforementioned house on the ground of default in payment of rent, subletting, personal need and damage to the rented property. The writ petitioner who was respondent in the said petition contested the same and in terms of the pleadings following issues were framed:-- "(1) Whether relationship of landlord and tenant exist between the parties? OPA
(2) Whether rent deeds are forged and false documents? OPR
(3) Relief."
' The learned Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment petition. In appeal, the said judgment of the learned Rent Controller was set aside, appeal was allowed and the writ petitioner was directed to vacate the house in question forthwith.
2. During trial, the respondent produced A.W.1 Muhammad Waris Shah who stated that he had seen the house in question which belonged to the respondent-applicant and that he was for sometime a tenant in the said house. Mazhar Hussain appeared as A.W.2. He is Sale Supervisor in the Sui Northern Gas Company, Multan, He stated that a Sui gas meter bearing No, 11320338824 is installed in the house in question and the said meter is ,in the name of the respondent-applicant. Munshi Muhammad Jamil appeared as A.W.3. He prepared Exh. Al which is a site plan of the said house.
A.W. 4 is Abdur Rashid. He is a clerk in WAPDA. He submitted that the electricity meter is installed in the name of Abdur Razzaq who is son of the respondent-applicant. Rana Muhammad Ramzan appeared as A.W.S. He submitted that the rent deed Exh. A2 was written by him and that Muhammad Saleem (writ petitioner) put his signatures on it in his presence. Murad Khan appeared as A.W.6. He is author of Exh. A3 which is a rent deed for the subsequent years. He stated that the said rent deed was signed by Muhammad Saleem (writ petitioner) and another witness in his presence. Haji Muhammad Bakhsh applicant (respondent) appeared as A.W.7. He mentioned about having singed rent deeds Exh.A2 and Exh. A3 and submitted that Muhammad Saleem (writ petitioner) did not pay the arrears of rent since November, 1991. He further stated that he needed the house of settling his grandson. In cross-examination he stated that in the property tax record the number of the said property is 2543/13. He denied the suggestion that the house is owned by Niaz Muhammad and that the said Niaz is living in it since 1958. Abdur Razzaq son of Muhammad Bakhsh respondent No,2 appeared as A.W.8 He submitted that the house in question was initially given on rent for the year 1986 at a rent of Rs,350 per month and that subsequently it was enhanced. The second rent deed was written in the year 1991 (Exh.A3) while Exh. A2 was written in the year 1986. He further submitted that Muhammad Saleem (writ petitioner) had not paid rent since November, 1991. Abdul Khaliq appeared as A.W.9. He is the marginal witness of rent deed Exh.
A3 and submitted that it was written in his presence and that Muhammad Saleem (writ petitioner) and Muhammad Bakhsh (respondent No,2) had singed the same in his presence. Tamleeq (Exh.A4) was also placed on record and the respondent Muhammad Bakhsh closed his evidence.
4. Besides himself Muhammad Saleem produced only one witness and documents Exh.R1 and Exh.
R.2. He submitted that the house in question belonged to Niaz Muhammad and that he was living in it since 1956. He further stated that the house consisted of five rooms. In cross-examination, he stated that the suit property was initially a vacant plot which the aforereferred Niaz Muhammad occupied and built the house. To a question about the taxation number, he stated that there was no taxation number of the said house. He admitted that Exh. R5 is an invitation card of the marriage of son of Niaz Muhammad which was solemnised in the house which is subject-matter of this petition. He denied having singed Exh. A3 and Exh. A2. Niaz Muhammad appeared as R.W.2. ;-Fe stated that in the year 1956 a plot was vacant and he built the house in question in the said plot and that Muhammad Saleem is his brother-in-law who resides with him. He stated that his house does not bear any taxation number and that the electricity meter is installed in his name. In cross- examination he submitted that there is no Sui-gas connection in the house. He admitted that he got printed Exh. AS which is an invitation of his son's marriage. He further admitted that he is an employee in the WAPDA of the last 30 years and that he gets electricity at concessional rate. He admitted that on his Identity Card which was prepared in 1974 the address given is Katchi Abadiwala. He denied the suggestion that the house belonged to Muhammad Bakhsh (respondent No,2).
5. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has assailed the order of the learned District Judge, Multan on the following grounds:--
(i) That the respondent-plaintiff in his ejectment petition had shown the number of the house to be 7110/9-F but in his statement before the learned Rent Controller while appearing as A.W.7 he mentioned the number of the house as 1543/13. This creates a serious doubt qua the ownership;
(ii) that no map of the house in dispute was placed on record;
(iii) that as the writ petitioner has denied his signatures on Rent Deeds Exh. A3 and Exh. A2, With the consent of both the parties, the learned trial Court directed that the thumb-impressions and signatures of Muhammad Saleem writ petitioner on the aforereferred documents be sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Lahore for comparison and the requisite fee would be deposited by Muhammad Saleem and the case was adjourned to 25-6-1995. On 11-6-1995, Muhammad Saleem gave an application to the learned appellate Court that the writ petitioner being poor cannot pay the requisite fee and that he should be exempted from payment of the said fee. However, the learned appellate Court notwithstanding the aforereferred application allowed the appeal of respondent and directed ejectment of writ petitioner from the house in question.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent has defended the impugned judgment by making following submissions:--
(i) That the order dated 24-5-1995 was passed with the consent of both the parties and in the presence of the writ petitioner and with a view to further prolong the matter, the writ petitioner had given an application on 11-6-1995 with a view to resile from his earlier commitment to make the payment of the requisite fee;
(ii) that the detailed arguments were addressed on 9-7-1995 and the writ petitioner filed his written arguments as well and he cannot take up the plea that he was not heard;
(iii) that on account of the delaying tactics of the writ petitioners, the learned District Judge compared the thumb-impressions and signatures himself and proceeded to decide the matter; and
(iv) that Exh.A5 which is an invitation card got printed by R.W.2 and stand admitted by him clearly shows that the number of the house popularly known was 7110/9-F. This is the number which is written in Exhs.A2 and A3 as also in the plaint.
7. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record certified copies of which have been placed on record by the petitioner and the respondent.
8. The onus to prove issue No,1 was on the respondent-applicant. To discharge this onus, he produced two rent deeds Exh.A2 and Exh.A3 having been executed by Muhammad Saleem writ petitioner. Rana Muhammad Ramzan who scribed the rent deed (Exh.A2) appeared in Court and stated that the marginal witnesses as also writ petitioner had signed the document in question in his presence. A.W.6 Murad Khan who is marginal witness of Exh.A3 appeared in Court to prove this document. Similarly, Abdur Razzaq appeared as A.W.8 who stated that he attested Exh.A2 while Abdul Khaliq appeared as P.W.9 to state that he attested the rent deed (Exh.A3). Despite a lengthy cross-examination, to which they were subjected their testimony could not be shattered. The testimony of the aforereferred witnesses was further corroborated by A.W.4 Abdur Rashid who is a Senior Clerk in WAPDA. He stated that electricity meter bearing No,5113018600 . Is installed in the name of Abdur Razzaq who is son of Muhammad Bakhsh (respondent No,2) and the same was installed in the year 1990. On the question of taxation number of the disputed house, Exh.A2, Exh.A3 as also Exh.A5 (which stands admitted) indicate that the number of the house was generally known to be 7110/9-F though in the Taxation Department it was 2543/13. Exh.RI was produced by the petitioner-defendant. It is a copy of PT-I issued by the Taxation Department on 21-3-1994 when the ejectment petition was still pending. The number of the house given in it is 2543/13 and respondent Muhammad Bakhsh is shown to be owner whereas petitioner Muhammad Saleem is shown to be the occupier. This corroborates the version of respondent who stated' that number of the house in Taxation Department is 2543/13.
9. As against the aforereferred evidence adduced by Muhammad Bakhsh applicant-respondent No,2, Muhammad Saleem writ petitioner produced only one witness besides himself. He appeared as R.W.1 and took up the plea that the house belonged to his brother-in-law Niaz Muhammad. But this plea has not been substantiated by anything on record and appears to be afterthought. For instance in his written reply he never referred to the ownership of Niaz Muhammad. Neither he nor the said Niaz Muhammad while appearing as R.W.2 referred to any document of title. In fact R.W.2 admitted in cross-examination that the said house was initially a vacant plot which he occupied and built a house on it but he could not place on record any site plan sanctioned for the construction of the house which further falsifies his claim as the house is admittedly in the municipal limits and no house can be constructed without a proper sanction granted by the Municipal Corporation submission of which is a condition precedent.
10. So far as the question of not sending the specimen signatures of thumb-impression of Muhammad Saleem to the Handwriting Expert for comparison with Exh.A2 and A3 is concerned I am afraid the learned District Judge had rightly proceeded to compare Saleem's signatures taken before the Court with that of his earlier signatures on Exh.A2.And Exh.A3. The reason being that with the consent of Muhammad Saleem an order was passed on 24-5-1995 that the specimen signatures should be sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Lahore and the requisite fee shall be paid by Muhammad Saleem writ petitioner. After about three weeks of this order he made an application that he could not pay the fee of the Handwriting Expert. This was in clear violation of the earlier undertaking given by him through order dated 24-5-1995. The learned District Judge was, therefore, justified in proceeding to compare the disputed signatures and thumb-impression himself, hearing the arguments in the main appeal and deciding the matter.
' The evidence of an expert witness is primarily corroborative in nature. If there is overwhelming direct evidence qua the point in issue, the recording of the statement of an expert witness may not be essential in every case. Moreover the Court is not denuded of its power to compare the signatures itself and the finding so arrived at by the learned Court cannot be taken exception to merely on the ground that expert witness was not called.
The writ petitioner denied the relationship of landlord and tenant which relationship is protected by the rule laid down in Article 115 of the Qanoon-eShahadat, 1984 which reads as under:-- "No tenant of immovable property, on person claiming through such tenant, shall, during the continuance of the tenancy, be permitted to deny that the landlord of such tenant had, at the beginning of the tenancy, a title to such immovable property; and no person who came upon any immovable property by the licence of the person in possession thereof shall be permitted to deny that such person had a title to such possession at the time when such licence was given."
' The only exception to the aforereferred concept of estoppel is a notice by a third person who happens to be the real owner. In that eventuality the relationship of landlord and tenant comes to an end. In PLD 1973 Kar.284 (Azimuddin v. Dilshad Hussain), it was held:-- "Evidence Act, 1872 (I of 1872), S.116---Applicability and scope--Real owner intervening---Protection under S. 116---Not available.
' Ordinarily, by reason of the rule laid down in section 116, a tenant cannot deny the title of his landlord. But the legal position becomes very different when a third person, who is the real owner, intervenes, and, in that case, the relationship of landlord and tenant comes to an end if the tenant is evicted by this real owner. The eviction need not be actual, but may be only symbolic. In other words, if there is notice to quit from the real owner to the tenant in occupation of the disputed property, or if there is a threat of eviction from the real owner to such tenant, then it would be a case of symbolic eviction of the tenant by the real owner which would bring to an end the relationship of landlord and tenant which is protected by section 116 of the Evidence Act."
11. The petitioner has assailed the judgment of the learned District Judge, Multan dated 9-7-1995 in this Constitutional petition. No misreading, non- reading or jurisdictional defect has been referred to warrant interference with the said judgment under Article 199 of the Constitution. This writ petition has no merit which is, therefore, dismissed.