' MIR HAZAR KHAN KHOSO, J.---Petitioner, Sher Muhammad, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 21-5-1995, passed by a Judge in Chamber of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi.
2. The facts giving rise to these petitions are that respondent Mst. Khurshid Jehan Begum filed an application against the petitioner for his ejectment from the premises known as Aziz Hotel situate within municipal limits of Talagang, before the Rent Controller, Chakwal, on the ground of default in payment of the rent as well as change made by him in superstructure of the property. The petitioner disputed the title of the respondent and denied, the relationship of landlord and tenant between them. The learned Rent Controller framed following two issues:--
(i) Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties? OPA.
(ii) Relief.
3. The parties led oral as well as documentary evidence. Vide his judgment dated 5-4-1993 the learned Rent Controller decided the issue in favour of the respondents and order his ejectment.
However, he did not pass any order regarding payment of arrears of the rent. The petitioner as well as the respondents filed appeal before the Court of the learned District Judge, Chakwal, which came for hearing before the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Chakwal. The both appeals were dismissed. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No,300 of 1994 before the High Court, whereas the respondents filed Writ Petition No,419 of 1994. On 21-5-1995 a Judge in Chamber of the High Court dismissed the petition of the petitioner. He, however, accepted the petition of the respondents holding that the landlady was entitled to recover the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs,500 per month with effect from August, 1989 to the date of eviction of Sher Muhammad from the suit property. The petitioner has challenged above said order of the High Court before this Court and sought for leave to appeal.
4. We have heard Mr. Altaf Elahi Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court with Mr. Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record, for the petitioner and Mr. Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record, for the respondents.
5. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner we have perused the record available before the Court. The learned counsel contended that the High Court has misread the evidence of the parties led before the learned Rent Controller, hence it was case of misreading which warrants interference of this Court. We have gone through the order passed by the learned Rent Controller as well as the Additional District Judge. Both of them have examined the evidence produced by the parties fairly. We do not find any defect therewith. While going through the record of the case the High Court has also observed that it did not find any fault with the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge regarding title of Mst. Khurshid Jehan Begum or existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to convince us as if it was a case of misreading. However, at the end abortively the learned counsel contended that the High Court had seriously erred in holding the petitioner to be defaulter and the respondents to be entitled to recover Rs,500 per month as arrears of the rent from August, 1989 to the date of eviction. We also find no fault with the abovesaid order. Once the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was established by the respondents, she resultantly is entitled to recover arrears of the rent. In view of the circumstances discussed herein-above we do not find any merit in both the petitions, which are dismissed and leave to appeal is refused accordingly.