' TALAT QAYUM QURESHI, J.--- Zulfiqar Ahmad Mir respondent No,3 filed Eviction Petition No,20/R.C. In the Court of learned Rent Controller, Abbottabad on 11-10-1994 against Muhammad Iqbal the writ petitioner. The eviction petition was resisted by Muhammad Iqbal on the ground that he was not tenant under respondent No,3. His plea was that his real brother Zafran was owner of the suit shop having purchased the same vide registered deed No,632 attested on 24-10-1964 and his brother has challenged the validity of registered deed No,2, dated 1-1-1972 in the name of Abdul Majeed the grand-father of respondent No,3 and the said suit was still pending adjudication in the competent Court. The learned Rent Controller after recording pro and contra evidence of the parties accepted the eviction petition vide judgment/order, dated 23-9-1999 and the petitioner/tenant was directed to vacate the suit shop and hand over the possession to respondent No,3 within 2 months. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner (tenant) filed appeal before learned District Judge, Abottabad. The said appeal was also dismissed vide judgment/order, dated 7-3-2000. The petitioner has impugned orders/judgments, dated 23-9-1999 and 7-3-2000 passed by learned Rent Controller and District Judge, Abbottabad through writ petition in hand.
2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is not tenant under respondent No,3. The suit shop belongs to his brother Zafran who had purchased the same vide registered deed No,632 attested on 24-10-1964 from Mst. Akbar Jan and that the sale-deed No,2, dated 1-1-1972 registered in the Office of Sub-Registrar, Abbottabad in favour of Abdul Majeed grand-father of respondent No,3 has , been challenged through a suit filed by his brother which is pending adjudication in the competent Court of law. The impugned orders be, therefore, set aside and respondent No,3 be directed to get his title cleared from the Civil Court.
3. On the other hand, Mr. Fazal Gul, Advocate the learned counsel representing respondent No,3 argued that in the written statement the petitioner/tenant took up the plea that Zafran, his brother, is the owner of the suit shop whereas in para. 4 of the grounds of appeal altogether a different ground was taken that the shop in dispute was exchanged with Abdul Majeed by Zafran. The pendency of civil suit, it was argued was not a ground for staying eviction proceedings. Reliance was placed on 1990 CLC 1146.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. The respondent No,3 in order to prove his case before the learned Rent Controller examined Syed Qamar Razi, Record Keeper, Municipal Committee, Abbottabad, who produced assessment register regarding the suit shop which shows Abdul Majeed to be owner of the said shop. Zulfiqar Ahmad, respondent No,3 was examined as P.W.2 who placed on record copy of the agreement to sell as Exh.P.W.2/1 and copy of the sale-deed as Exh.P.W.2/2. Copy of the legal notice was placed on record as Exh.P.W.2/3 whereas A.D. Card Exh.P.W.2/4. He stated that the petitioner (tenant) had been paying rent to his grandfather and after his death to his father and since the shop has devolved upon him he was also paid rent by the petitioner at the rate of Rs,300 per month. Abdul Ghani and Muhammad Ayub were examined as P.Ws.3 and 4 who stated that they were also tenants under Zulfiqar and that petitioner (tenant) had been paying rent in their presence to Zulfiqar.
6. In rebuttal petitioner examined Khalid Rafique, Registry Muharrir. Abbottabad who produced copy of registered deed No,2, "C/2", dated 1-1-1972 in favour of Abdul Majeed. Nisar Ahmad Senior Clerk Excise and Taxation was examined as R.W.2 who produced copy of P.T.1 in which at Serial Nos.65.To 69 Zulfiqar respondent No,3 has been mentioned as owner and Kala Khan butcher (petitioner) has been shown as tenant, Muhammad Iqbal, the, petitioner was examined as R.W.3 and Mir Alam was also examined by petitioner. In the cross-examination the petitioner admitted:-- "It is also correct that I, Ghani and Muhammad Ayub are tenants of those shops."
' He further admitted:-- "It is incorrect that I am not tenant to the petitioner and I am falsely deposing in Court today."
He admitted tenancy under respondent No,3 in his cross-examination. He failed to produce Zafran his real brother as his witness before the Rent Controller. The two independent witnesses examined by respondent No,3, namely Abdul Ghani and Ayub also deposed that the petitioner/tenant had paid rent to respondent No,3 in their presence. The above discussion would show that landlord having produced independent and natural witnesses like Abdul Ghani and Muhammad Ayub, their statement were sufficient to decide the issue of existence of relationship of landlord and tenant in favour of landlord. On the other hand, the evidence of the tenant was too weak, vague, bristles with inherent contradictions and even the petitioner (tenant) has admitted in the cross-examination that he was tenant under respondent No,3, it was, therefore, rightly brushed aside by the Courts below. If any authority on the subject is needed, reliance can be safely placed on Karim Bakhsh v.
Haji Ghulam Dastgir and 5 others 1996 CLC 1940. The argument of the learned counsel that since the suit of Zafran brother of the petitioner is pending in the Civil Court whereby he has challenged the validity of registered deed in favour of the grandfather of the respondent/landlord, therefore, the proceedings before the learned Rent Controller should have been stayed by him, has no force.
The mere pendency of a civil suit could not automatically stay the proceedings before the Rent Controller. If any suit challenging the registered deed in favour of Abdul Majeed, the grandfather of respondent No,3 from whom he inherited the suit shop is pending, the same would not debar the Rent Controller to proceed further with the matter.
7. Similar view has been taken in cases Muhammad Ashraf v. Faqir Muhammad 1992 MLD 601, Sub- Divisional Officer v. Vidya Parchank Mandil 1997 M LD 933, Iqbal and others v. Mst. Rabia Bibi PLD 1991 SC 242. In case Muhammad Ishaq v. Syed Muhammad Zubair 1996 M LD 797 it was held:-- "Mere pendency of civil suit regarding ownership of premises will not automatically stay the proceeding of rent case or rent appeal."
8. Both the Courts below have concurrently held respondent No,3 to be landlord of the shop in dispute and petitioner as tenant in the said shop. We have not been pursuaded to interfere with the concurrent findings of both the Courts below. Resultantly, the writ petition in hand is dismissed.