' The respondent, Mushtaq Ahmad, being owner of Property No,1943/D, Raja Chowk, Faisalabad, consisting of eight shops and a residential portion, filed an ejectment application under section 13 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance against the appellant being tenant in occupation of shops Nos.7 and 8. It was averred in the application that the appellant had not paid the rent of the disputed property to the respondent from 'August 1994 to June, 1995; that the property in dispute was required for his personal use. The application was contested by the appellant, who also denied relationship of landlord and tenant. It was alleged that Muhammad Khalid Pervez is landlord of the appellant being actual owner of the property and the appellant has been making payment to the said landlord, who is son of the respondent. The Rent Controller after framing issues and recording evidence of the parties oral as well as documentary accepted the ejectment application vide order, dated 26-3-1997. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad vide judgment and decree, dated 29-7-1997 upheld the finding of the learned Rent Controller.
2. Mr. Abdul Majid Raghib, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the respondent in response to notice given to the respondent in CM for interim relief.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Both the Courts below after appreciating the evidence oral as well as documentary produced by the parties have come to the conclusion that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. The learned counsel for appellant has contended that the finding recorded on issue No,5 by the Courts below in contrary to record. In view of this contention of the learned counsel the record was summoned and the same has been perused with his assistance. Exhs.R.1 to R.4 are the Rent Notes allegedly executed by the appellant in favour of son of respondent. From the perusal of the Rent Notes. It appears, that those were got executed in connivance with the son of respondent who was aggrieved against second marriage of his father the respondent. The appellant has not even cared to prove these documents as neither the scribe nor the marginal witness was produced. The same is the case with receipts of rent Exhs.R.5 to R.45. The ownership of the property still vests in the respondent. The appellant has simply tried to take advantage of the dispute between father and son. It has been admitted by the appellant that he paid any rent to the respondent and after appreciating the evidence the learned Rent Controller was justified in holding that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. Khalid Pervez appearing as R.W.2 admitted in cross-examination that the property was purchased by his father, Mushtaq Ahmad, respondent. He has also admitted that the respondent has arranged second marriage after the death of his mother and is residing with her second wife. He, however, showed his ignorance about the fact that whether the appellant used to pay the rent to respondent. No document whatsoever has been produced by Khalid Pervez or the appellant to establish that under what authority Khalid Pervez had been receiving rent from the appellant, what to talk about his ownership. The said Khalid Pervez had been siding with the appellant and supporting his case for the obvious reason that his interest was being watched by the appellant and if the appellant had succeeded before the learned Trial Court then it was KhaliV,Pervez who was to be directly benefited by this alliance. Being an interested witness his statement was rightly ignored by the Courts below.
4. The respondent was successful in proving his case before the learned Rent Controller about his title and about willful default committed by the appellant. The finding of the learned Rent Controller was rightly upheld by the learned Appellate Court and no illegality or infirmity has been committed by the Courts below. The ejectment application was filed on 19-7-1995 and since then the respondent' is being deprived from the use of his property by the appellant without any legal justification. This appeal has no merits and the same is dismissed with costs. The record of Lowers shall be sent back immediately.