' KHALIL-UR-REHMAN KHAN, J.---This petition for leave to appeal arises out of an eviction petition filed by the respondents Nos.3 and 4 seeking eviction of the petitioner from Quarter No,4, Iqbal Building, Ehsan Road, Naulakha Park, Faiz Bagh. Lahore. On the ground of default in payment of rent and for bona fide personal use. The petitioner contested the eviction petition denying the existence of relationship of tenancy.
2. Learned Rent Controller after framing necessary issues and recording evidence of the parties accepted the petition vide order dated 5-1-1998. The appeal of the petitioner failed vide judgment dated 27-3-1998 of the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore. The matter was then agitated before the High Court by filing a Constitution petition which was also dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 30-10-1998. Hence this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions which were urged before the High Court. These were that no notice as required under section 13-A of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) was given by the respondents so there was no question of any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the petitioner had committed no default in payment of rent. It was urged that both the Courts below have misread the evidence as Major Tariq respondent No,4 had categorically stated while appearing as A.W.1 that petitioner had paid rent up to September, 1993 and thereafter, had failed to make payment. Learned counsel further referred to a suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the petitioner against Mst. Gulzar Begum Mst. Nargas Maqbool and Major Tariq Parvez to urge that nothing has been said about the ownership of Nargas Maqbool and as such the finding that the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant stands established is not sustainable. Learned counsel also referred to application for summoning of Mst. Yasmin Salim as Court Witness in the case to get the question of title of property cleared but that was not permitted by the trial Court and the fact of refusal was not gone into by the learned Judge of the High Court.
Likewise, affidavit of Mst. Gulzar Begum wherein she had categorically stated that she never transferred the property in dispute to Mst. Nargas Maqbool was also not considered by the Courts below and as such simple admission of the respondent that she received the notice does not mean that the said notice was under section 13-A of the Ordinance.
4. We have gone through the impugned judgments as well as other material available on record and find that the concurrent finding to the effect that the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties is unexceptionable as it is based on not only the admissions of the petitioner but also is inferable from the pleadings Exh.. D.1 (suit of declaration and permanent injunction filed by the petitioner in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Lahore) wherein the payment of rent stands admitted in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the plaint. In this suit, Mst. Nargas Maqbool has been cited as defendant No,2 while Major Tariq Parvez has been arrayed as defendant No,3. The affidavit Exh.E/1 allegedly filed by Mst. Gulzar Begum was not proved on record and as such it was righly held to have no value in law.
5. Learned Judge of the High Court in the impugned judgment has rightly observed that when the receipts are admitted, notice is admitted and tenancy is admitted then there was absolutely no occasion for the petitioner to deny the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Even in reply to ejectment petition the petitioner had simply denied that he was not a tenant under respondent Nargas Maqbool.
6. In the circumstances of the present case the plea that the respondent/landlord should have been left to have the title determined from the civil Court is not available. Learned Judge of the High Court rightly repelled this contention relying on the ratio in the case of Muhammad Rafique v.
Muhammad Hanif and 2 others (1988 SCM R 1222) wherein it was observed that there is no law that whenever a tenant raises plea of title, the Rent Controller is obliged to refer the parties to the civil Court. The question of notice under section I3-A of the Ordinance as well as other pleas have also been elaborately dealt with by the learned Judge of the High Court in the impugned judgment and stand repelled by cogent and sound, reasons with which we fully agree.
7. We, therefore, find no merit in this petition. Leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed.