MAULVI ANWAR-UL-HAQ, J.--- Respondent No. 2 filed a petition for ejectment of the petitioner and her sons respondents Nos. 3 and 4 from. The residential premises bearing No. S-76-R.
10. In Chatai Ahata, 1-Lytton Road, Lahore more particularly described in para 3 of the ejectment petition. Her case was that the premises were transferred to her late husband Sh. Abdul Hakim by the Rehabilitation Department and that after the death of said Abdul Hakim she is the owner; that the house was rented out to the said tenants at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month in the year 1988. The grounds stated in the ejectment petition were default in payment of rent, personal need of. The landlady and impairment of value and utility of the premises. The. Petitioner and her sons filed a written statement on 16.5.1998. In the written statement it was stated that they were neither tenants under Abdul Hakim nor Sughran Bibi, rather they had been in possession of the premises since the year 1947 and that they had never paid any rent to any one. Learned Rent Controller framed the following issues:-
(1) Whether there exists relationship of landlord and tenant among the parties: OPP.
(2) Whether the petitioner has no cause of action to. File this petition? OPP.
(3) Relief.
Evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment petition vide order dated 20.2.1999. Feeling aggrieved respondent No. 2-filed a writ petition which was heard by respondent No. 1 who proceeded to allow the same vide his judgment dated 24.1.2000.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that respondent No. 1 had acted without lawful authority inasmuch as the evidence on . Record has been 'misread while passing the impugned order. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2, on the other hand, contends that the impugned order is in perfect accord with the evidence on record and within the jurisdiction of learned Appellate Authority.
3. I have gone through the records of the Trial Court Which was summoned, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the . Parties. I have already reproduced the respective pleadings of the parties above. Mst. Kausar Fano the attorney of respondent No. 2 who is also the sister of the deceased Abdul Hakim appeared as A.W.1. She stated that the property was transferred in lieu of the claim of her brother and produced P.T.D.EX.A.2; that the house was rented out to the petitioner ten years ago (statement of the witness recorded on 20.7.1998) and that she had not paid the rent at the agreed rate of Rs.1000/- per month since three years; that at the said time, respondent No. 2 was residing with this witness. A.W.2 is Rauf Khalid who stated that the petitioner is a tenant. A VV.3 is Saeed Ahmad. This witness in the course of his statement stated that he had himself seen the petitioner paying rent to respondent No 2. In rebuttal the petitioner took plea which was not taken in the written statement and was not even suggested to any of the witnesses appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2. She entered the witness-box as R.W.3 and stated that she had purchased the property from Abdul Hakim for a sum of Rs.20,000/- and that she had filed a suit for specific performance of agreement. She admitted that respondent No. 2 is a widow of said Abdul Hakim.
She also admitted that she did not obtain receipt for the payment of amount to Abdul Hakim. Her witness Muhammad Yousaf, R.W.1 stated that Iqbal, the husband of. The petitioner had paid Rs.1.5,000/- as price of the house to Abdul Hakim. The price was paid on 9th of Moharram and he died on the 10th and the sale-deed could not be registered.
3-A. The Permanent Transfer Deed (wrongly described by the Rent Controller at P.T.O.) is on record as Ex.A.2 and according to this The premises in question was transferred to Abdul Hakim s/o Muhammad Rafi who paid the transfer price on 10.12.1966.
4. It will thus be seen that respondent No. 2 had led evidence which is consistent with her pleadings and is supported by the document of title Ex.A.2. On the other hand, the petitioner in her pleadings stated that she entered into possession in the year 1947 and that she had not been paying rent to any one. In the course of her evidence she proceeded to take the plea that she had purchased the house from Abdul Hakim 'or Rs.20,000/- and that she had filed a suit for specific performance. Her witness Yousaf lqbal, R.W.1 stated that the husband of the petitioner paid Rs.15,000/- as price of the house to the deceased Abdul Hakim.
5. The evidence led by the petitioner is not in accordance with her pleadings. Besides she had failed even to prove the said unpleaded plea. Thus in the present case, to my mind, the admitted fact that Abdul Hakim was the transferee of the premises and that he is dead and that respondent No. 2 is his widow and she claimed and led evidence that the petitioner is her tenant, was sufficient to discharge the Onus to the issue and the said evidence has of course remained unrebutted. On the other hand, the petitioner in the course of evidence admitted the title of the petitioner but proceeded to state that she had purchased the house from her husband. This plea stands unproved on record.
6. I, therefore, do not find myself in agreement with the said contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. There is ample evidence on record to support the order of respondent No.1. This writ petition is without any force and is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
7. While concluding his arguments the learned counsel under instructions from his client, the petitioner lady who was present in Court prayed for some time to be granted for vacation of the counsel for 'respondent No. 2 after consultion hi client , agreed to give six months time. It is, therefore, hereby directed that the petitioner and respondents Nos. 3 and 4 shall deliver possession of the premises to respondent No. 2 on or before 31.5.2001. In case she fails to do so respondent No. 2 shall be at liberty to execute order of ejectment passed by respondent No. 1.