In this writ petition order dated 18-4-1994 passed by District Judge, Multan has been assailed on the ground that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between petitioner and contesting respondents, and that learned District Judge has erroneously held that relationship of tenant and landlord exists between the parties.
2. Brief facts of the case are that predecessor-in-interest of respondents, namely Muhammad Aslam filed an ejectment petition against petitioner from the property in dispute on the ground of default in payment of rent, personal need and damage to the property. The petition was contested by the petitioner by filing written statement, wherein he specifically denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Learned Rent Controller framed the following two issues on pleadings of the parties: (1)Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties? OPP (2)Relief.
The parties adduced their evidence and learned Rent Controller after hearing the learned counsel for the parties came to the conclusion that relationship of landlord and tenant does not exist between the parties consequently ejectment petition was dismissed vide order dated 6-1-1994 against which contesting respondents preferred an appeal which was accepted by the learned District Judge, Multan vide impugned order by reversing the finding on issue No, 1 . He directed the petitioner to vacate the premises in dispute within three months from the date of impugned order i,e, 18-4-1994.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the very outset conceded that contesting respondents are owners of the disputed property but he submitted that yet it has not been established that he is tenant under them. He has also submitted that a compromise was effected between the parties which is evident from the order dated 22-11-1995 and Civil Miscellaneous No,2627 of 1995 submitted on 23-11-1995. By virtue of said compromise the petitioner agreed to pay to contesting respondents Rs, 3,80,000 as price of the disputed premises out of which he paid Rs,25,000 and the remaining amount was agreed to be paid before this Court on 20-12-1995. However, the balance amount was not paid by the petitioner in time. On 20-12-1995, the case was adjourned to 28-1-1996 and then to 5-2-1996. On 11-6-1996 the case was dismissed for lack of instructions. Thereafter petitioner's counsel made an application Civil Miscellaneous No,1110 of 1996 for recalling the said order, which was allowed and the writ petition was restored to its original number.
4. On 24-6-1996, Civil Miscellaneous No,1171 of 1996 was moved by the contesting respondents for dismissal of the writ petition stating that as per compromise between them and the petitioner, he was required to pay the balance amount on 20-12-1995 otherwise the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on which notice was issued to the petitioner for 8-7-1996 and thereafter, the case was adjourned on one pretext or the other and has come up for hearing today. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the record. The petitioner as well as none of the contesting respondents, present in Court were asked whether said agreement still exists between them. The respondent refused to endorse the same with a plea that the petitioner having not paid the balance amount as agreed upon on 20-12-1995, therefore, they are not bound by the same.
The application for compromise (C.M. No,2627 of 1995) was considered by this Court on 23-11-1995.
According to this application, it was agreed by the petitioner that he will pay the balance amount of Rs,3,55,000 on 20-12-1995; he will be deemed to the owner of the property in question on payment of the said amount and the respondents will be bound to execute the sale deed in his favour. It was also stipulated that in case he failed to pay the said amount on the date, his writ petition would be liable to be dismissed. In terms of the agreement petitioner has not paid the balance amount on 20-12-1995, therefore, contesting respondents are justified in not accepting the balance amount. As he failed to comply with the conditions of the agreement. therefore, contesting respondent cannot be forced to accept the balance amount at this late stage and execute the sale-deed of disputed premises in his favour.
5. As mentioned above, it is conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that contesting respondents are owner of the property in dispute, petitioner has no right to stay on without paying any rent. The impugned order passed by the learned District Judged is not open to any exception. It is based on proper appreciation of evidence placed on the record.
6. It may also be added that writ petition is not competent in rent matters. Reliance may be placed upon in Muhammad Sharif and another v. Muhammad Afzal Sohail etc (PLD 1981 SC 246) wherein it has been held: "Writ petitions from orders of Tribunals to be discouraged--Competency to decide includes to decide rightly or wrongly by Tribunal--Merely because another conclusion could be arrived at from evidence, would not make it a case for interference under Article 199--Filing of petition to circumvent law or defeat legislative intention of speedy disposal of cases, deprecated."
7. For the above reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner is, however, given 4 months' time to hand over the vacant possession of the premises in dispute to the contesting- repondents/landlords. No order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.