' IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, ACTG. C.J.---This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 9-6-1999 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No,9566 of 1999.
2. The grievance herein arises out of eviction application filed by the respondents against the petitioners on ground of default, personal need and damage. In her statement, the petitioners denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties on the ground that the premises were taken on rent by the husband of the petitioner for running school from the other joint owners. It was alleged that the rent was paid up to 31-12-1995 where after payment was stopped because of execution of sale agreement, dated 18-1-1996 with the other co-owners.
3. The learned Additional Rent Controller, vide order, dated 17-4-1999 stayed the ejectment proceedings on the ground of pendency of suit for specific performance of the agreement.
4. Being aggrieved, the respondents approached the High Court through Constitutional petition.
The learned Judge in Chambers relying on the judgment of this Court in Khalique Ahmad v. Abdul; Ghani and another (PLD 1973 SC 214), took the view that the ejectment petition was competent, inasmuch as, the petitioner did not deny the tenancy with the other co-owners but claimed that there was a sale agreement allegedly executed by the other co-owners.
5. Learned Advocate-on-Record for the petitioner repeated the submissions made before the learned Rent Controller. We find no substance in these submissions. The same were rightly repelled by the learned Judge in Chambers by assigning cogent reasons. It would be advantageous to reproduce paragraph 8 of the impugned order, which reads thus:-- "Respondent No,2 did not claim any agreement of sale from the petitioner but claimed the agreement from the other co-owners. Mere execution of the agreement could not either suspend tenancy or take away jurisdiction of the learned Additional Rent Controller to entertain and decide ejectment case. Unless exemption from payment of rent is claimed, the tenant could not avoid the consequences of default. Reference can be made to Haji Jan Muhammad v. Ghulam Ghaus and 2 others (1976 SCM R 141). Similarly, mere filing of the suit for specific performance could not result in stay of proceedings before the learned Additional Rent Controller. The tenant could pursue the suit if ultimately succeed, the possession can be restored but nevertheless, the proceedings in the ejectment petition cannot be stayed during the pendency of the suit nor the pendency of the suit could have any reflection on the title of the landlord as illegally assumed by the learned Additional Rent Controller in this case. Reference can be made to Iqbal and 6 others v. Mst. Rabia Bibi and another (PLD 1991 SC 242)."
6. After hearing the learned Advocate-on-Record for the petitioner and perusing the material available on record, we are of the view that the High Court was right in holding that the order passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller suffered from patent jurisdictional error.
7. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed and leave declined.