FAZAL ILAHI KHAN, J.---Admittedly petitioner got the suit house on rent in the year 1969-70 from Ateeq Ahmad respondent, however, on 6-1-1976 Ateeq Ahmad sold thesuit house in favour of respondent No.1 through a registered sale-deed. On 8-11-1992 Lutuf Muhammad Khan respondent No.1 filed an ejectment petition against the petitioner-tenant on the grounds of default in payment of rent since January, 1992 at the rate of Rs.200 p.m., though he had agreed to enhance the rent from Rs.200 to Rs.300 since January, 1993 and bona fide personal requirement.
2. Respondent in his written statement denied the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and further stated that he has paid the rent to Ateeq Ahmad Khan up to November, 1991 and thereafter when he refused to accept the rent he sent the rent to him through money order. The learned Rent Controller framed a preliminary issue with regard to existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties on which both the parties led their evidence. The learned Rent Controller decided the issue in favour of the landlord-respondent and in pursuance thereof passed an order of ejectment on 26-7-1993. The tenant ~ appealed against- -,,the order of ejectment which was dismissed on 2-5-1994. These judgments and orders were challenged in Constitution Petition No.497 of 1994 before the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi. The learned Judge in the Chamber dismissed the writ petition by judgment dated 22-1- 1995. Leave to appeal is prayed for against the judgment of the Lahore High Court:
3. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no notice under section 13-A of the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance was served on the petitioner by respondent No.1 informing the petitioner of his having purchased the house in question from Ateeq Muhammad Khan, therefore, under the law no order of ejectment could have been passed on the ground of default. It was further contended that petitioner has been regularly paying rent to Ateeq Ahmad even after the alleged sale in favour of respondent No. l as he acted as attorney for the transferee in order to conceal respondent-Vs. Entitlement to the rent. It was further contended that even if the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant is found to have been proved the learned Controller was required to have ordered the petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent, if any, and to proceed with the case for giving decision on merits i.e. The other issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties. In support of his contentions the learned counsel relied on various judgments, which on perusal are quite distinguishable from the facts of the present case.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusal of the record,---in the light of the contentions raised we find no substance in the contentions. It is in the evidence of both the parties that dispute had arisen between the parties somewhere in the year 1980 as respondent No .l landlord wanted to get the petitioner ejected from the property which the petitioner resisted and the matter went before the Martial Law Court. In the Martial Law Court both the parties were summoned and the matter was decided after both the parties entered into an agreement dated 12-1-1980. A copy of the agreement has been placed on file and is Exh.A-1. It was agreed that the petitioner-tenant will vacate the property till 12-2-1980 and will pay the arrears of rent or Rs.500 and further rent from January, 1980 to 12-2-1980 at the rate of Rs.200 per month. The execution of the deed, which has been proved, has not been denied but the same is challenged on the ground that it was the result of coercion and undue influence of the Martial Law Authorities and that it was not binding on the petitioner. There is yet another piece of evidence which is the admission of the petitioner that he did file a civil suit challenging the said agreement on the grounds stated above but the petitioner failed to account for that and he did not explain its result.
5. Irrespective of the fact whether the agreement can be relied upon and its terms can be enforced or not it stands proved that the petitioner had sufficient notice that the house in question was sold to respondent No. l and that he was his landlord. Such being the case the conduct of the petitioner being contumacious by denying the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant and his denial of his having paid rent to him even after such notice was sufficient for ordering his ejectment without recording any further evidence. Leave to appeal is accordingly refused and petition dismissed.