This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 arises out of an application under section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restrictions Ordinance, 1959 brought by respondent No.1 against the petitioners seeking their eviction from the property in dispute on the ground of default in payment of rent. In the written reply, the petitioners denied the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and certain other objections were also raised. Out of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- (1)Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties? O.P.P.
(2)Whether the petition is barred by section 14 of Order No.VI of 1959? O. P. R.
(3)Whether the rent deed does not pertain to the property in possession of the respondent? O.P.R.
The parties led evidence in support of their respective cases, on the appraisal of which the learned Rent Controller held that respondent No. l has been successful in proving that the petitioners were tenants under him. In coming to this conclusion, reliance was placed mainly upon rent note executed by the petitioners' predecessor.
The order of the Rent Controller was challenged by the predecessor of the petitioners by filing an appeal which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge who affirmed the findings of the Rent Controller. Two other appeals which were directed against the interim orders of the Rent Controller have also been filed by the predecessor of the petitioners and were also disposed of by the same judgment as also another appeal filed by petitioner No.2 in his own right met the same fate.
2. Ch. Muhammad Bakhsh, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the judgment of the Additional District Judge and order of the Rent Controller stand vitiated on account of misreading of evidence and that it is established on the record that the petitioners and their predecessor were owners of the property in dispute and not tenants in respect thereof. Learned counsel further stated that the petitioners have also filed a civil suit where the question of title was sub judice and in these circumstances, the Rent Controller should not have passed an order of eviction. In the same context, learned counsel maintained that earlier dispute between the parties had come to this Court in the form of I.C.A. No.37 of 1997 which was disposed of by a Division Bench of permitting the petitioners to establish their title before the Civil Court and therefore, the ejectment petition was not maintainable.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent has been heard.
4. It is true that in the reply filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, he took the plea that he was in possession of the property as owner and not tenant under respondents. It is also correct that the litigation between the parties on the settlement side lead to the filing of Constitutional petition and then I.C.A. No.37 of 1997 which was withdrawn by the petitioners' predecessor on 2-6-1987 by stating that he would like to move the Civil Court and the Division Bench, while allowing withdrawal of appeal, directed that the civil suit, if filed, shall be disposed of within a period of three months. It is however unfortunate that that direction has not been complied with and the civil suit filed by the petitioners' predecessor seeking declaration that they were owners of the property in dispute still remains undisposed of. Both the Rent Controller as also the Additional District Judge in view of the pendency of the proceedings before the Civil Court did not go into the question of title and observed that it should be left to be decided by the Court concerned. This course is in accord with the law declared by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Rehmatullah v. Ali Muhammad and another 1983 SCM R 1064.
5. While holding that the petitioners were tenants in respect of the premises, learned Rent Controller as also Additional District Judge mainly relied upon the rent note executed by the predecessor of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners has attempted to argue that the execution of the said document has not been proved. I am afraid this plea of the learned counsel does not deserve any serious consideration as perusal of the reply to the ejectment petition shows that the petitioners' predecessor, who was the executant of the rent note, had admitted its execution but sought to avoid on the plea that rent note related to some other property and not to the property in dispute. Consequently, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioners to take up a diametrically opposite position and denied the execution of rent note itself.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has then gone on to argue that the rent note, Exh.P.1 pertains to another property which had been taken on rent by the predecessor of the petitioners from respondent No. 1, but the possession of which has since been restored to him and has no relevance so far as the present proceedings are concerned. The same plea was taken before the Rent Controller who repelled the same by observing that: "I have gone through the oral and the documentary evidence produced by the parties. I have also thoroughly examined the documents placed on record by them. Exh.P.6 and Exh.P.13 are assessm ents by the Excise and Taxation Department of the suit property for the year 1971--72 and 1976-77. Exh.P.7 to P.11 are the receipts of payment of the property tax of the suit property made by the petitioner.
The description of property shown in plan Exh.P.12 corresponding to the description given in his ejectment application by the petitioner, and it is also the same in the rent deed Exh.P.1.
The witnesses of the respondent in their statements have also given exactly the same description of the property in occupation the respondent at present from which the petitioner has sought his ejectment".
7. When the matter came in appeal before the Additional District Judge he had this to say: "The site plan Exh.P.2 attached with ejectment of the witness. It pertained to the same property from which the ejectment was being sought. It was borne out from record that alleged P.T.D., dated 6-7- 1973 issued in favour of Hakim Muhammad Javed a conditional P.T.D. The condition was 'property transferred if available'. But since the property; was already in the name of Mian Khurshid Ahmad, respondent-landlord, it was subsequently concealed vide order of Settlement Commissioner, dated 20-10-1975. Exh.P.3 and order, dated 22-9-1978 Exh.P.4 of record. Hakim Muhammad Javed appellant went in Writ Petition No.422 of 1977 against the cancellation of his P.T.D. But the same was dismissed by his Lordship Mr. Justice Gull Muhammad Khan vide his order, dated 14-3-1977 Exh.P.7.
It was observed by his Lordship that Hakim Muhammad Javed appellant could get determined his title through Civil Court. Thereafter, Mutation No.90, sanctioned in favour of Hakeem Muhammad Javed appellant was also cancelled by the Collector, vide his order Exh.P.5 on record. In record of Excise and Taxation Department, Hakim Muhammad Safdar, late appellant-tenant was shown as tenant vide document Exh.P.6 and Exh.14. The rent-deed Exh.P.I was duly proved and by oral evidence certified by Muhammad Akram P.W.1 and Ejaz Ahmad P. W.6 who were marginal witnesses of the said deed. The contention that the property which was the subject-matter of rent deed had fallen to the ground or had been handed over back to the respondent-landlord teas not believed by the Settlement Authority which rejected this contention during the course of leaving before it. The other witnesses fully substantiated the facts that the premises in dispute was the same which was the subject-matter of the rent deed. It had been also borne out that house No.NW-128-R-15 and house No.NW-128-R-19 purchased by the respondent-landlord from one Noor Muhammad and these were the premises which Hakim Muhammad Javed appellant had got transferred from the Settlement Department in his name and had got aforesaid P.T.D., which was subsequently cancelled on discovery of alleged misrepresentation. The description of property shown in plan Exh.P.12 fully corresponded with the description given in the ejectment petition by the respondent-landlord. The contention of the appellant that the property in dispute was not the same because there were five rooms instead of three rooms as stated in the ejectment petition.
But since the premises in dispute was in possession of the appellant Muhammad Javed he had added two more rooms by making partition walls in the big room. Oral evidence has established this fact on record. Thus, learned Rent Controller had rightly decided Issue No. l in favour of respondent-landlord. Likewise Issues Nos.2 and 3 were also correctly decided against the appellants. "
8. The question as to whether the rent note related to the same property or the property presently in dispute is essentially one of fact. The Rent Controller as also the Additional District Judge on thorough appraisal of evidence have concurrently found that this rent note was in respect of the property from which the eviction of the petitioners' predecessor was sought by filing the ejectment petition out of which this petition has arisen it is not permissible to displace the finding of fact by re-appraising the evidence and even if two views were possible this Court cannot interfere with this findings.
9. The contention of the learned counsel that the evidence has been misread is wholly baseless as nothing has been pointed out; though the attempt of the learned counsel was to have the evidence reappraised which is not permissible. I have with the assistance of the learned counsel, gone through the evidence and found that the decisions of the Rent Controller and the Additional District judge are unexceptionable. The description of the property in dispute in. The ejectment petition tallies with the description of the property in the rent deed and as such it can safely be held that the rent note is relatable to the property in dispute.
10. Before parting with the case, this Court must express its sense of dismay and shock over the fact that an ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller about 18 years ago on 3-10-1979 still remains unexecuted. Further though a Division Bench of this Court as far back as 2-6-1987 while deciding the appeal, had directed the Civil Judge concerned to dispose of the suit within a period of three months, that suit is still pending. The failure to decide the suit within the period fixed by this Court, to say the least, must be deprecated. The Registrar of this Court shall hold an inquiry, fix the responsibility for non--compliance of the order and take action against the delinquent judicial officer.
This petition is dismissed with costs