The facts leading to this writ petition are that respondents Nos.3 to 6 filed an ejectment petition under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 against the petitioner on the ground that they are land-lords of the disputed premises whereas the petitioner/government is statutory tenant under them. It was contended in the writ petition that disputed premises was liable to be vacated by the petitioner as it has committed default in payment of rent and also because the premises are required for personal use by the landlords. The ejectment petition was resisted by the petitioner on the ground that there was no relationship of landlords and tenant between the parties inter alia for the reasons that the disputed premises were transferred to the Government and its price had already been paid; that transfer in favour of the petitioner could not be cancelled by the Settlement Commissioner vide his order dated 10-8-1968; that the petitioner continued to be the transferee owner of the property in question and as such was not liable to pay any rent to the respondents/landlords and that the learned Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to decide the ejectment petition.
2. The learned Rent Controller framed the following issues to settle the aforesaid points:-
(1) Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties: OPA
(2) Whether the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to decide the application: OPR
3. The learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion vide his order dated 8-5-1993 that respondents/landlords were transferee owners of the land in question as held in civil suit filed by them against which the petitioner/tenant had gone upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, but without any success. The issues were, therefore, decided in favour of the respondents/landlords by the learned Rent Controller on the ground that after the title having been decided upto the Supreme Court as stated above, it did not lie in the mouth of he petitioner to deny tenancy under the respondents/landlords. It was also held that the petitioner was liable to pay rent, but since it failed to do so, therefore, it was liable to be ejected.
4. The order of the learned Rent Controller was challenged before the appellate forum which came up for hearing before Mr. Inam Ullah Khan, learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, who upheld the order of the learned Rent Controller vide his judgment dated 3-7-1996. The present writ petition is filed to challenge the concurrent findings of both the learned Courts below.
5. It is contended in the writ petition that the petitioner was not given sufficient opportunity to examine the evidence on the issues framed by the learned Rent Controller. It was alleged that the evidence of the petitioner was arbitrarily closed by the Rent Controller on 4-10-1992 and that the case was previously adjourned in routine and not at the request of the petitioner/tenant so as to attract the penal provisions contained in Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C. Reliance was placed on:--
(i) Ghulam Rasool v. Rai Ghulam Mustafa and others reported as 1993 SCMR 2026,
(ii) Haji Muhammad Ramzan Saifi v. Mian Abdul Majid and others reported as PLD 1986 SC 129,
(iii) Province of Punjab v. Mst. Zeenat Shaheen and 2 others reported as PLD 1990 Lahore 180,
(iv) Javaid Akhtar Nawaz v. Mehr Kabir reported as 1990 CLC 1122 and
(v) Muhammad Shafique v. Mst. Zahida Begum and others reported as PLD 1995 Lahore 561.
6. Elaborating the above points, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that since the date on which the closure of evidence was applied by the learned Rent Controller was not occasioned due to request of the petitioner/tenant, therefore, the order was bad in the eye of law particularly when even the petitioner was not examined as his own witness. It was, therefore, submitted that the petitioner's evidence was wrongly shut out, which prejudiced his case to prove that the denial of tenancy under the respondents/landlords was justified.
7. The learned counsel for the respondents/landlords, however, contended that the principle laid down in the above authorities was not applicable to the facts of this case because those cases related to the closure of evidence in civil suite where the provisions of C.P.0 were applicable and the alleged' penal clause contained in Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C.; was not attracted because the adjournments for evidence were not made at the request of the party concerned. However, in the instant case the Rent Controller was a tribunal with special jurisdiction working under a special statute and was only required to give the tenant reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the ejectment petition. In this context, reference was made to subsection (2) of section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. In addition to that it was contended that the technicalities of law contained in C.P.C., were not applicable to the proceedings before the learned Rent Controller and as such he was not bound to follow any strict procedure to try the ejectment petition except that he has to afford reasonable opportunity to the tenant to show cause against the ejectment petition. Keeping that in view it was alleged that in the instant case the learned Rent Controller had given not only reasonable opportunity to the tenant to show cause against the ejectment petition, but had given about 11 opportunities to the petitioner/tenant to adduce oral or documentary evidence. In this regard, reference was made to paragraph No,4 of the written statement filed to this writ petition. It was contended that the case was fixed for the first time for the evidence of the petitioner/tenant on 5-11-1989 and was adjourned to 10-12-1989, 24-1-1990, 21-4- 1990, 10-6-1990, 12-3-1991, 5-6-1991, 8-9-1991, 25-11-1991, 17-2-1992 and 4-10-1992 respectively. It was also added that vide order dated 8-9-1991 the writ petitioner/tenant was given last chance to produce evidence with a further warning that he shall produce the evidence on 25-11-1993 at his own responsibility. It was thus obvious that the writ petitioner/tenant was given sufficient opportunity to examine his evidence but he failed to put any witness in the witness-box or to bring on record any document to belie the ground regarding existence of relationship of the landlord and the tenant between the parties. On the contrary, the respondents/landlords filed documentary evidence showing that their title in the disputed property was proved upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan and the same was also affirmed upon oath by one of the landlord/respondent, when he entered the witness-box as a witness. There was nothing in rebuttal, therefore, the learned Rent Controller was justified not only to close the evidence of petitioner but also to direct the ejectment of the petitioner/tenant from the disputed premises as admittedly no rent was paid and the relationship of landlord and tenant was persistently and wilfully denied knowing well that the title has already been proved upto the Supreme Court of Pakistan in a civil litigation between the parties and as such it was submitted that notice under Section 30 not necessary nor further inquiry in ejectment petition was required to be held as laid down in Muhammad Ramzan v. Ch. Bashir Ahmed reported as PLD 1981 SC 340.
8. The learned counsel for the respondents/landlords finally submitted that the petitioner/tenant had applied for the reopening of evidence in the trial Court, but the prayer was rejected. Likewise the application for additional evidence was moved before the appellate Court, but the same was also turned down on the ground that the petitioner/tenant did not disclose as to what evidence was aimed to be examined by the petitioner. As such it was urged that the petitioner/tenant just wanted to delay the matter without any rhyme or reason knowing fully well that a patent default has been committed after the relationship of landlord and tenant has been wilfully denied.
9. I have taken into consideration, the arguments addressed at the bar from both sides. It is to be seen whether the learned Rent Controller had closed the evidence of the petitioner arbitrarily or had granted reasonable opportunity to him to examine his evidence. Although according to the learned counsel for the petitioner opportunity to examine the evidence was given, but the evidence was wrongly closed vide order dated 4-10-1992. In this connection, as already stated above, the learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant contended that since the aforesaid date was not granted at the request of the petitioner, therefore, the closure of evidence amounted to penalty. The authorities relied on this point relate to the provisions contained in Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C., but admittedly those provisions are not applicable stricto senso in the proceedings before the Rent Controller. The Legislature intended that disputes between the landlord and tenant should be settled not only quickly but in a summary manner by cutting out unnecessary legal technicalities.
The only requirement was that the Rent Controller hadto afford reasonable opportunity to a tenant to show cause against the ejectment petition. As such the principle laid down in the authorities cited at the bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant will not be strictly attracted to the facts of the case because the proceedings before the Rent Controller for the evidence of the petitioner/tenant remained pending for almost three years before the evidence was closed after giving a warning on one date that it be treated as a last opportunity and yet on another date that the tenant shall examine his evidence at his own responsibility. It appears that no heed to these warnings of the learned Rent Controller was paid and the matter was handled casually by the petitioner/tenant without any care and caution. Although in PLD 1995 Lahore 561, which was a rent case, in a First Appeal before the High Court an opportunity was directed to be given to the tenant because after the closure of evidence by the Rent Controller, the tenant had appeared immediately in the Court and had offered to be examined as his own witness, but in the instant cases nothing was done before the Rent Controller or even before the lower appellate Court in that way.
10. During the hearing of this petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner requested that atleast one opportunity be given to the petitioner/tenant with a time limit to produce his evidence before the learned Rent Controller to promote the ends of justice. This was, however, opposed by the learned counsel for respondents/landlords on the ground that this was just an excuse to get the case reopened and to interpose delay in the disposal of the matter, which has been hanging fire since long. In this respect, it was further added that the effort of the petitioner/tenant to reopen the case was not justified because even now the petitioner/tenant has not been able to disclose before this court as to what type of evidence it would like to examine or produce before the learned Rent Controller. The mere request for reopening the case was, therefore, not allegedly justified when the parties had a hot contest over the title of the property upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. It was, therefore, urged that reopening of the case would not serve the interest of justice in any manner.
11. I have considered the above submissions and find that even now while arguing the case, it has not been pointed out as to what evidence is intended to be produced before the learned Rent Controller. The learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant was of the view that if an opportunity is given, then whatever evidence would be available, shall be produced before the Rent Controller. It is hardly a good reason to set aside the impugned order of the Tribunals below, which have been passed after taking into account the entire history of the case. In this context, it may be added that even on 4-10-1992, there was not a proper person before the Rent Controller from the side of the petitioner/tenant as it had only sent Muhammad Sarwar, Assistant/writ clerk from the Police Department to appear in the Court. No request was even made by that official that his statement be recorded. As such it was rightly held by the learned Rent Controller that the petitioner/tenant was given sufficient opportunity to examine their evidence but it failed to do so. Similarly the question of title was decided in the Civil court between the parties. It was ultimately held upto the Supreme Court of Pakistan, that the respondents/landlords were the transferee owners of the property and that the petitioner/tenant had nothing to do with the aforesaid property. This was also taken into account by the learned Rent Controller as well as by the learned lower appellate court, as they had threadbare thrashed out that the title of the property vested in the respondents/landlords as held by the civil court and had been affirmed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. In such a situation, the denial of title by the petitioner/tenant was not only wilful, but contumacious. In fact, the petitioner had become statutory tenant under the respondents/landlords in the property in question and was bound to pay the rent as claimed by them. The denial of the petitioner to be a tenant under the respondents/lanldords would be a denial to pay the rent to them. As such, they cannot be now allowed to say that they were ready to make the payment of rent, as the default had become patent after the denial of the relationship of landlord and tenant on the principle that one cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate simultaneously. The learned Rent Controller was, therefore, justified not only to close the evidence but also to order eviction of the petitioner from the disputed premises. The appeal against the order of the Rent Controller was also rightly decided because it was found that the closure of evidence was justified as not only reasonable but sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner/tenant to examine the evidence during the proceedings before the Rent Controller. In such a situation, I do not find any latent or patent defect in the impugned order passed by the learned Rent Controller, or by the learned lower appellate Court in respect of the property in dispute.
12. The writ petition being meritless is dismissed with costs. The writ petitioner/tenant is directed to vacate the premises and deliver its vacant possession to respondents/landlords within one month from today.