Heard
2. Instant case has a chequered history of more than a decade ago, when, on 12th October, 1985, Abdul Karim, petitioner, lodged an application under section 13 of,,West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) seeking eviction of Muhammad Asad Ullah respondent No. l from the premises, fully described in the headnote of application, on the grounds of default in payment of rent, bona fide personal need and requirement and diminishing its value.
3.It was averred therein that the respondent had obtained the premises at the rate of . Rs.125 per month vide an agreement of tenancy executed on 25-10-1982, premises comprised of 35,Marlas with two constructed rooms and a compound wall, situated in. Ward No.5, Noorpura adjoining to Canal Rest House, Chishtian, District Bahawalnagar; whole of premises, except one room/Kotha, shown in red colour in the map/plan annexed with the application, unlawful possession whereof was taken over by respondent prior to 26-2-1985, was rented out, respondent not only failed to - pay rent since February, 1983 till the institution of petition, but also made alterations and converted it for commercial purposes, without prior permission of petitioner and thus deteriorated its condition and materially impaired its utility and value.
4. It was resisted by the respondent, who, not only, denied the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the petitioner, refuted execution of any agreement of tenancy, but also, disputed very ownership of petitioner with regard to premises in question, which, even according to him, did not Measure 35 Marlas. It was conversely claimed that the premises measured 39 marlas, was situated in Killa No.29, Square No.91, 6 Marlas, out of it, owned by him (respondetit) while remaining belonged to Municipal Committee, Chishtian and he was in occupation thereof with due permission of the Committee. It was further stated that the premises in dispute was situated in joint Khata, wherein, Muhammad Aslam, Nazir Ahmad, Rana Sarblund, Municipality and Canal Department were owners of 1 Kanal, 14 Marlas, 1 Kanal, 15 Marlas, 8 Marlas, 1 Kanal, 17 Marlas and one Kanal respectively. As alleged there in, rent deed, was fabricated upon his refusal to appear as a witness in a case for possession of property measuring 28 Marlas against Ahmad Shah brought by petitioner.
5.Matters in controversy, arising out of such divergent pleadings of parties, were reduced and converted into following issues:-- (1)Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties? OPA (2)If Issue No. l is proved, then whether the respondent is liable toforthwith ejectment? OPA (3)Relief.
6. After recording evidence of parties, wished to be adduced by them and, of course. Providing due opportunity of being heard to them , learned Rent Controller, came to conclusion that neither rent agreement dated 25-10-1982 was proved nor relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. As a seqt1el thereto ejectment petition was rejected vide an order dated 23-4-1988.
7.Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with this order, petitioner: preferred an appeal, which, was accepted and allowed by learned Appellate Authority/Additional District Judge, on conclusion, that relationship of landlord and tenant between the patties was fully established by rent deed dated 25-10-1982, which, stood duly proved on the strength of evidence adduced on record by the petitioner. As a consequence, forthwith ejectment of respondent from the premises in question was ordered on 10th April, 1989.
8.Matter was agitated in Constitutional Petition (W.P. Nd.523 of 1989/BWP), which, was disposed of on 20-9-1992 by following order:-- "In the light of foregoing reasons, the impugned order is hereby declared to have been passed without any lawful authority and is accordingly quashed. The case is remanded to the learned District Judge/Appellate Authority, Bahawalnagar under section 15 of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 to decide. The appeal in accordance with the material already on record in consonance with law. Since the case pertains to rent matter, the Appellate Authority is directed to decide the appeal of the respondent within six months of the receipt of those orders positively. There shall be no order as to costs. "
9. Once appeal suffered dismissal in default and subsequently restored on 27-7-1994. At this juncture an endeavour to produce copy of judgment of Civil Court and nine other documents, mostly, copies of Jamabandis, by the petitioner, did not succeed, as application seeking permission to adduce additional evidence, was declined and turned down by virtue of an order dated 28-9-1994. Ultimately, appeal, , also met the fate of dismissal on 31-10-1994 as findings and conclusions of learned Rent Controller were upheld and maintained by observing that the petitioner had miserably failed to establish relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the respondent.
10. Such orders of rejection. Of application seeking permission to adduce additional evidence and of dismissal of appeal passed by learned District Judge, Bahawalnagar have been called in question and assailed in this petition under Article 199 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
11. Reliance has been placed on Mst. Amina Begum and 2 others v. Muhammad Siddique and others (1996 SCMR 1773), Bashir Ahmad v. Abdul Hamid and another (PLD 1982 Lah. 449), Ghulam Hussain v. Abdur Rehman and another (PLD 1982 Lah. 519)--- and Muhammad Hussain and others v. Settlement Commissioner, Lahore and others (PLD 1984 Lahore 139), to contend, inter alia, that documents, sought to be produced into evidence, ought to have been taken into account and consideration, as provisions of Evidence Act do not strictly apply to proceedings and rather inquiry, for all intents and purposes, under Rent Restriction Ordinance. Reiterating this aspect, other factors, points and grounds urged in the petition, learned counsel representing the petitioner has endeavoured. To argue and. Canvass that inferences, conclusions and findings of learned District Judge are manifestly' based not only on misreading of evidence, but also on conjectures and surmises. Also it has been impressed that mountain of doubts has unnecessarily been made out by the lease of land in favour of respondent, who, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, was unable to rebut, the execution of rent deed Exh.Al.
12. Impugned orders, conversely, have been acclaimed to be correct in all respects
13. Exhaustive discussion with regard thereto by learned Rent Controller and learned District Judge, leave no room to differ that execution of Exh.Al, very basis, of entire edifice is not established by statement of its scribe, and marginal witness, whose testimony, in respect of said :document and payment of any rent is scanty to be given any credence. An objective appreciation thereof and appraisal, in its true perspective, renders it to be untrustworthy for cogent and convincing reasons advanced in the orders, now sought to be impeached and set at naught. Needless to observe that solitary, shaky and ambiguous statement of petitioner as A.W.3 was really insufficient and too meagre to prove validity of Exh.AI and existence of relationship of landlord and tenant, between him and the respondent and was rightly held so particularly in face of documents Exhs.R.l to R.11.
14. Failure of, the petitioner to tender very site plan into evidence, prove payment of any rent by the respondent,. Establish actual measurement of area, demarcation, occupation of one room not included in Exh.Al by the respondent, ownership of respondent of 6 Marlas of land and other ambiguities lead to no other inference than that arrived at by learned Rent Controller and learned District Judge.
15. As a necessary corollary, impugned orders are well-warranted in law and call , for no interference by this Court in . Its , Constitutional jurisdiction,
16. Seemingly the petition, culminated into said orders, is one in the chain and vortex of litigation, in which, parties have involve& themselves 17Viewed from any angle, same merits outright dismissal and is hereby dismissed in limine.