1. MIAN SHAKIRULLAH JAN, J.---Through the instant 'writ' petition, the petitioner prays for setting aside the judgment/order dated 9-5-1996 of the Rent Controller, Mardan and judgment/order dated 24- 11-1996 of the District Judge, Mardan being illegal and without jurisdiction. The petitioner has also prayed for dismissal of the ejectment application of respondent No,1 with costs throughout.
2. 2.Brief facts of the case are that Javed Iqbal, respondent No,1/landlord, filed an ejectment application before the Rent Controller, Mardan for ejectment of Nisar Ahmad, petitioner/tenant from the suit house on the grounds of default in payment of rent, personal need, damage to the suit house and violation of the terms of the rent deed. The petitioner/tenant contested the application by filing his replication wherein he denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and also stated that with regard to the suit house a civil suit is pending in a Civil Court filed by Saifullah and others against Nisar Ahmad, in which suit the title of the parties is yet to be decided. Keeping in view the aforementioned nature of the pleadings of the, parties, the learned Rent Controller framed the following preliminary issue in the case:-- "Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties?"
3. ' After recording evidence, pro and contra, the learned Rent Controller passed ejectment order in favour of Javed Iqbal, respondent No,1/landlord, and the appeal filed against the said ejectment order by Nisar Ahmad, tenant/appellant, was also dismissed by the learned District Judge, Mardan on 24-11-1996.
4. 3.The order sheet dated 23-9-1997 of this Court 'reveals' that the alleged Rent Deed (Exh.P.W.4/1) was missing from the judicial file and, therefore, the respondent/landlord was directed to produce the original deed on the next date of hearing. Inquiry in this regard was also ordered to be conducted by the Civil Judge concerned. Today, the original Rent Deed was produced in the Court for perusal which was returned after inspection by the Court and photo copy of the same was placed on the case file.
5. 4.Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that the learned Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to decide the title of a person in eviction application which is the job of a Civil Court. He has further argued that respondent No,2 has miserably failed to prove, on the case file, that he is landlord of the disputed premises or that petitioner is the tenant under respondent No,1 in the said house. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is difference between a landlord and a landowner and in absence of any Rent Deed/Rent receipts, the relationship of landlord and tenant does not exist in the case in hand.
5. The arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner are without any force and misconceived.
6. On the question of title of the property, the learned Rent Controller has rightly observed in her judgment that normally the question of title relating to any property is to be decided by a Civil Court, but if such a question is also raised before the Rent Controller in connection with ejectment proceedings relating to such property, it can be decided by him with limited scope necessary for arriving at proper conclusion for the ejectment etc. purposes. So far as the question of the Rent Deed is concerned, we have perused the original rent deed which has been duly executed and signed by Nisar Ahmad, petitioner, thereby acknowledging his tenancy under Javed Iqbal, respondent No,1 in the suit house at the rate of Rs,300 per month from January, 1982. Both the learned Courts below have concurrently held that Javed Iqbal has fully proved that the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between 'the' parties and rightly so, keeping in view the evidence available on record.
7. From perusal of the impugned judgments, it cannot be said that the judgments/decrees of the learned Courts below suffer from any legal infirmity or the same is the result of non-reading or misreading of the evidence or the same have been passed without jurisdiction. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine and the stay order dated 13-1-1997 granted in Civil Miscellaneous No,1975 of 1996 is hereby vacated.