' MUHAMMAD YUNUS SURAKHVI, J.---This appeal, by way of leave of the Court, has been directed against the judgment passed by the High Court on 8-11-2000, whereby the writ petition filed by respondent No,1 was accepted and the one filed by the appellant herein was dismissed.
2. The necessary facts, giving rise to the present appeal, are that Mir Khalid Bashir, the appellant herein, claims to have rented out Shop No,11, situate in Sector C/1 Mirpur to Nazar Hussain, respondent No,1 herein, in the year 1979. The respondent is running the business of spare parts in the said shop. An application was filed by the appellant herein for ejectment of respondent, Nazar Hussain, from the said shop in the Court of Rent Controller, Mirpur. It was asserted in the application that Nazar Hussain, respondent, had not paid the rent since January, 1993. It was further claimed that the appellant is running the business of baking and wanted to open various branches of his Bakery in New Mirpur Town, therefore, the shop was needed to him for his personal use. The application was contested by the respondent.
3. The trial Court after the conclusion of trial accepted the application filed by the appellant herein and passed an order for ejectment of respondent, Nazar Hussain, from the shop. On appeal taken to the District, Judge, he concurred with the finding of the Rent Controller on the point of ejectment of respondent from the said shop; however, the District Judge recorded findings against the appellant on Issues Nos.3 and 4. Both the appellant and respondent, Nazar Hussain, filed writ petitions before the High Court being Writ Petitions No,180 of 1999 and 75 of 1999. Writ Petition No,180 of 1999 was filed by Mir Khalid Bashir, appellant herein, challenging the findings recorded against him on Issues Nos.3 and 4, while Writ Petition No,75 of 1999 was filed by respondent, Nazar Hussain, challenging its order for his ejectment from the shop in dispute. The High Court vide the impugned judgment, dated 8-11-2060 accepted the writ petition filed by respondent, Nazar Hussain, and dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant, Mir Khalid Bashir. It is the aforesaid judgment of the High Court which is the subject-matter of present appeal.
4. In support of appeal it has vehemently been contended by Ch. Muhammad Anwer, the learned counsel for the appellant, that the impugned judgment of the High Court is patently illegal, erroneous and bad in law. The learned counsel contended that a concurrent finding of fact was set aside by the High Court without any justifiable reason. The learned counsel also pressed into service the submission that despite the fact that the shop in question stood transferred by the appellant herein in favour of his brother Khuda Bakhsh, he still had the locus standi to move the application for ejectment of respondent and to lodge the writ petition against the order recorded against him by the District Judge. In support of his contentions the learned counsel for the appellant relied upon section 2(d) of the Azad Jummu and Kashmir Rent Restriction Act, 1986 and contended that the appellant herein falls within the definition of the word "landlord" and the High Court erroneously adverted to the question of ownership of the shop in question; The learned counsel for the appellant in support of his contentions relied upon reported cases titled Muhammad Sadiq v. Allah Dad 1996 SCM R 48 and Irshad Ahmed and others v. Allah Ditta and others (1998 SCM R 948).
5. In reply Mr. Muhammad Yunus Tahir, the learned counsel for respondent No,1, argued that the appellant had no cause of action at all against the respondent as he had transferred the shop in question to his brother Khuda Bakhsh since 20-4-1987. Therefore, the application for ejectment filed by the appellant in his personal capacity as landlord was not maintainable as the relationship of landlord and tenant came to an end after 20-4-1987. The learned counsel referred to Exh."PD", a transfer order of the shop in question in favour of Khuda Bakhsh, the brother of the appellant. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the appellant appeared as a witness before the trial Court and has admitted in cross-examination that he had transferred the shop to his brother who had died and his legal representatives are now the owners of the shop in question. Thus, the learned counsel contended that after the transfer of shop, the appellant had no cause of action against the respondent but the Rent Controller as well as the District Judge failed to consider the above aspect of the case. The learned counsel contended that the appellant moved the application for ejectment on his own behalf and not on behalf of the heirs of the deceased, Khuda Bakhsh, therefore, the ejectment application was not maintainable in the circumstances of the case. The learned counsel for the respondent in support of his contentions placed reliance on reported cases titled Nasrullati v. Mts. Fatima Begum (1991 CLC 2018) and Shabbir Hussain v. Mst. Shan-um Khatoon (1985 M LD 124).
6. After hearing the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, it may be stated, that the appellant, as per his own statement, has transferred the shop in question to his brother Ithudi Bakhsh, who has also died and his legal heirs have now become the owners of the shop. The shop was transferred by the appellant to Khuda Bakhsh on 20-4-1987. The transfer-deed Exh."PD' clearly states that the shop was transferred by the appellant to his brother Khuda Bakhsh. Thus, after the aforesaid date, he did not remain the landlord of this shop and his relationship with respondent as landlord and tenant came to an end.
7. The main reliance of the learned counsel for the appellant is on section 2(d) of the Azad luminu and Kashmir Rent Restriction Act, 1986 which reads as follows:--- 'Landlord' means any person for the time being entitled to receive rent in respect of any building or rented land whether on his own account or oil behalf or for the benefit of any other person, or as a trustee, guardian, receiver, executor or administrator for any other person, and includes a tenant who sublets any building or rented land in the manner hereinafter authorised and every person from time to time deriving title under a landlord."
' It is true that under this, provision of law the landlord is entitled to receive rent on his own account or on behalf or for the benefit of any other person as a trustee, guardian or receiver etc. But the question is that the application for the ejectment was moved by the appellant in his personal capacity and during the pendency of proceedings before the Rent Controller the appellant disclosed in his statement, while appearing as his own witness, that on 20-4-1987 he had transferred the shop in question to his brother, Khuda Bakhsh, who has also died. Thus, it was admitted by the appellant that the heirs of deceased, Khuda Bakhsh, are now the owners of shop in question. It was enjoined upon the appellant, either to move an application for the amendment of application for ejectment and to assert with the permission of the Court a plea that he as a guardian or receiver of the heirs of deceased was entitled to receive rent of the shop from the respondent or a fresh application should have been moved by the legal representatives of the deceased, Khuda Bakhsh, but none of the aforesaid courses was adopted by the appellant.
Therefore, after transferring the shop in question in favour of his brother Khuda Bakhsh, the appellant had no cause of action to maintain the application for ejectment against the respondent.
8. Ch. Muhammad Anwer, the learned counsel for the appellant, relied upon a case titled Muhammad Sadiq v. Allah Dad (1996 SCM R 48) wherein it was observed that a person filing ejectment application who was lessee of original owner and had constructed structure on the land in question which he had rented to tenant and had been receiving rent from the tenant since the time when the original owner was alive, was thus, landlord within the term "landlord" used in section 2(b) of the Ordinance.
' In another case, cited by the learned counsel for the appellant. Titled lrshad Ahmed and others v.
Allah Ditta and others (1998 SCM R 948), it was observed that issue relating to existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties being issue of fact stood concluded by concurrent findings recorded by the Rent Controller and appellate authority, whereby they had found that the respondents were inducted into property in question as tenants by appellant's predecessor and were, therefore, estopped from questioning title of their landlord and denying relationship of landlord and tenant.
9. The above cited both the authorities, in our considered view, have no relevancy to the proposition involved in the instant case. It was also not pleaded by the appellant that after transferring the shop in favour of his. Brother he was receiving the rent from respondent on behalf of the heirs of the deceased.
10. In a case cited by the learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. Muhammad Yunus Tahir, titled Nasrullah v. Mrs. Fatima Begum (1991 CLC 2018) it was observed that a widow on demise of her husband, original landlord, with the consent of other legal heirs had attained status of "landlady".
Ownership of property in question, having been transferred exclusively in the name of one of her sons, the stavis of widow at the best would be that of a landlady, authorised to collect rent on behalf of her son, provided she was authorised to do so in accordance with law. Widow's plea that her son being minor, she was acting as landlady on his behalf was not borne out by the . Material on record. Nothing available on record showed that the respondent- had filed ejectment application on behalf of her minor son. Ejectment application having been filed for reconstruction of building after demolition at the time when no approved plan and building permit was in the name of respondent; respondent's son who owned the property in question, being major, respondent had no entitlement to move ejectment application on his behalf.
' In another case titled Shabbir Hussain v. Mst. Shamim Khatoon (1985 M LD 124) it was observed that "landlord" means owner of premises and includes a person who for the time being authorised or entitled to receive rent. Once a person becomes owner of property he becomes landlord.
11. For the aforestated reasons, after the survey of case-law, when the appellant transferred the shop in question to his brother, his relationship as landlord with respondent Nazar Hussain a tenant came to an end. Thus, the High Court committed no illegality in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant and accepting the writ petition of respondent herein. The appeal, having no merits in it, stands dismissed with no order as to costs. However, the heirs of deceased, Khuda Bakhsh, or any person authorised on their behalf can competently proceed against the respondent for his ejectment from the shop in question and to receive the rent due.