' Ejectment order, dated 22-11-1993, passed by Rent Controller, in favour of the respondents and against the petitioner, as well as judgment, dated 30-9-1996, passed by the Appellate Court, have been assailed through the present petition.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondents filed an ejectment application against the petitioner for his ejectment from the Quarter bearing No,S-XX/III-IS-9 situated at Fateh Abad, Lahore, claiming to be owners of the said Quarter. Alongwith this, a site plan was also attached. It was averred that the petitioner who is tenant of the respondents, has failed to make the payment of rent since six/seven months before filing of the ejectment application.
3. This application was contested by the petitioner and the main ground of the defence was that the property in dispute does not belong to the respondents and that the land underneath the quarter is a Government land on which the petitioner has raised construction in the shape of a quarter. Besides, this land has been declared to be a "Katchi Abadi" and according to the declaration, made by the then Prime Minister, it is to be allotted to the petitioner. Thus, relationship of landlord and the tenant was categorically denied.
4. Learned Rent Controller framed issues with regard to the relationship of landlord and tenant; the respondents produced four witnesses as A.W.1 to A.W.4 as also documents as Exh.A.1 to Exh.A.4; petitioner examined A.W.1 to A.W.3 as his witnesses and produced documentary evidence as Exh.R.1 to Exh.R.4 as also Mark-A and Mark-B.
5. Learned Rent Controller, on the conclusion of the trial, passed an ejectment order, dated 22-11- 1993, against the petitioner holding that the relationship of landlord and tenant does exist between the parties. Appeal filed against the said order by the petitioner was also dismissed vide judgment, dated 30-9-1996. Hence this petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that both the Courts below have grossly misread the evidence on the record; that A.W.1 is the close relative of the respondents (being son in law) and thus his evidence was of no legal value at all; that this witness has also admitted in cross- examination that he has seen the titled documents of the property in dispute whereas admittedly, there is no registered sale-deed, or any title document except Jamabandi. Likewise, while criticizing A.W.2, Muhammad Daud, it is stated that this witness, who is resident of the area, occupied the property in vicinity in the year 1989, therefore, he could not establish tenancy between the parties, which was prior to his coming to the area.
' Learned counsel on the basis of above, has stated that respondents have failed to establish that the petitioner was inducted as tenant in the property in question, therefore, relationship has not been proved at all; that the documentary evidence produced by the respondents is not sufficient to establish the relationship.
' Learned counsel has further stated that the petitioner has already filed a suit for declaration in which the respondents are impleaded as party; this suit is with regard to the controversy of title between the parties and consequently, until and unless, the said matter was decided, the Rent Controller could not proceed with the ejectment petition. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has relied upon 1993 CLC 1702; 1992 CLC 873 and 1991 CLC 1367 to argue that where the question of title is involved, the Rent Controller is not a competent forum to decide such issues, rather such matter be decided by Civil Court. Learned counsel while placing reliance upon the aforesaid judgments, has also stated that in the present case, the dispute between the parties was with regard to a particular Khasra number and the respondents have neither in their ejectment application nor through any evidence on the record, have established that the Khasra number in occupation of the petitioner belongs to the respondents.
' Learned counsel has also stated that the demarcation report placed on record as Exh.A.4, is of no legal significance as demarcation has not been made by a Revenue Officer as defined in section 7 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, as held in PLD 1992 Lah.
63.
7. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent has stated that the Courts below thoroughly examined the evidence on the record and have found in unequivocal terms that the property in dispute is owned by the respondents and the petitioner was inducted as a tenant. The entire documentary evidence has been construed in a legal and proper manner, which leads to one and the only conclusion that the respondents are the owners and that the property in occupation of the respondents is neither part of Kachi Abadi nor constructed by the respondents as alleged.
' It is further stated that according to Exh.A.4, report of the Qanungo, which was prepared on the application filed by the petitioner himself, it is established that the petitioner is in possession of Khasra No,10054 which is admittedly owned by the respondents, therefore, the petitioner cannot object to this report. Because the Qanungo was appointed to demarcate and report by a Revenue Officer and this report was finally endorsed by such Revenue Officer.
8. I have, personally perused the judgments of the Courts below and record as well, and find that both the Courts below have considered all the factual and legal aspects of the matter. Learned counsel for the respondents states that it is not in each and every case where the relationship is denied vis-a-vis title of the landlord, the Rent Controller is bound to decide the issue against the landlord and advise him to seek declaration from the Civil Judge, rather Rent Controller has to draw distinction between the genuine and well-founded dispute about the title and that which is vexatious and is designed to achieve delay on frivolous and unfounded ground. According to learned counsel for the respondents, from the evidence on record, it was sufficiently established by them that they are owners of the property which was in occupation of the petitioner and that the defence set up was false and vexatious, and to delay the proceedings. He has placed reliance in this behalf of PLD 1985 SC 1. As regards the demarcation made by the Qanungo, he relied upon 1995 MLD 305 to contend that the demarcation of the land by the Girdawar Circle can be made when it is under the direction of the Revenue Officer because the final decision would be of the Revenue Officer. In this case also, it is Revenue Officer who has appointed Qanungo for demarcation of the property and has subsequently endorsed to report. Consequently, objection of the learned counsel for petitioner is untenable.
9. Both the Courts below as stated above have thoroughly considered the evidence on the record and the conclusion drawn regarding relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is not the result of any misreading, rather proper appraisal and appreciation of evidence. Further the Rent Controller is not bound in every case to dismiss the ejectment application as a matter of course only for the reason that the title of landlord has been challenged. In law a e duty is cast upon him to evaluate the seriousness and intricasy of the issues. If he feels satisfied that the matter can be resolved on the basis of evidence/material before him, he should not dismiss the ejectment application and leave the parties to face the lengthy course of civil litigation.
10. In the present case, the Courts below have absolutely acted within their authority to decide the question of relationship between the parties touching the question of tile as well.
11. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed. No order as to costs.