SAVED NAJAM-UL-HASSAN KAZMI, J. - This judgment will decide W.P. No. 10084/94 which calls in dated 10.7.1994 of the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad, in an ejectment case.
2. Respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance for seeking eviction of the petitioner from a house on the ground of default in payment of rent and personal use. It was claimed that the petitioner was a tenant of respondent No. 3, in the house in question on a monthly rent of Rs. 2,000/- and that the petitioner failed to make payment of the rent since July, 1988.
3. The petitioner denied relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Issue of relationship was framed by the learned Rent Controller which was answered in favour of the petitioner and in result ejectment petition was dismissed on 25.11.1990. Respondent No. 3 went in appeal which was allowed and the case was remanded for decision on merits. Writ Petition No. 7428 of 1991 was filed by the petitioner which was dismissed by this Court on 14.12.1991. Petitioner filed C.P.L.A. No. 60-C/92 in Supreme Court which was dismissed on 9.2.1992. In post remand proceedings, the learned Rent Controller found that the petitioner had not paid the rent and was a defaulter. Resultantly, ejectment order was passed on 18.3.1993. Appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 10.7.1994. The two orders have now been challenged in the present writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the main defence of the petitioner was of title which has been decided against him in the civil suit. He submitted that the petitioner had denied title of the property which stands adjudicated upon on the civil side out of which C.R. No. 3150/94 had arisen. Learned counsel submitted that success of this petition would depend on decision of the civil revision. It was, however, not denied that the petitioner had not paid the rent for the disputed period.
5. The default was alleged from July, 1988. The learned Rent Controller as well as the learned Additional District Judge concurrently recorded findings of fact against the petitioner and held that the petitioner was defaulter. Even otherwise, the petitioner does not plead payment of rent. The only defence taken by the petitioner was that the property was invalidly sold and that the respondent No. 3 could not claim rent. Issue of relationship of landlord and tenant was framed which was answered against the petitioner in appeal. Though, the ejectment petition was dismissed in the earlier round by the Rent Controller but the order was set aside in appeal by holding that oral tenancy was proved. The petitioner filed writ petition which too was dismissed.
The matter was further challenged before the Honourable Supreme Court where the petition for leave to appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed with the observation that findings of the learned Rent Controller would not effect the decision of the civil suit or determination of question of title raised therein. In view of the fact that the order holding the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties having remained affirmed, till the stage of Supreme Court, the petitioner could not possibly re-open the same issue. The case was remanded only for the purposes of decision on merit. Ejectment was claimed on the ground of default and personal use.
Default was admitted one as the petitioner never alleged having paid the rent for the period in issue. In this view of the matter, the findings of the Courts below do not suffer from any error of law.
6. As regards the dispute of title, the same has been separately decided against the petitioner in the civil suit and the civil revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by a separate judgment.
7. For the reasons above, no exception can be taken to the order of eviction passed against the petitioner. This writ petition, being without substance, is dismissed. Petitioner is, however, allowed period of 3 months to deliver vacant possession of the premises to the respondent.