' MUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LEGHARI, J.--- By this petition the petitioner has assailed.The order, dated 29-5-2000 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Malir in Rent Case No,77 of 1999 and the order, dated 12-12-2001 passed by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Malir in F.R.A. No,5 of 2001.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that respondent No,3 who happens to be the landlady filed a rent case against the petitioner who is a tenant in respect of Bungalow Nos.1 and 2 Billy's Homes, Main University Road, District Malir, Karachi on the ground of default in payment of rent and making additions and alteration in the premises without the consent of the landlady. The petitioner appears to have resisted the rent application thereby disputing the relationship of landlord and tenant and further alleging that since the sale agreement has taken place between the petitioner and respondent No,3 he was not liable to payment of rent.
3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned Rent Controller framed points for determination with regard to existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties commission of default in payment of rent and alteration and addition made in, the disputed property and after recording of evidence came to the conclusion that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties and that the petitioner had committed wilful default in payment of rent. Consequently, he allowed the rent application.
4. The order passed by the learned Rent Controller was challenged by the petitioner in F.R.A. No,5 of 2001 which was dismissed, as stated above, hence the instant petition.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. It is contended by the learned counsel that an agreement to sell was executed between the parties and a suit for specific performance was pending in respect of the disputed property. Since there was a dispute with regard to the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the petitioner was not liable to the payment of rent, till the suit was finalized. It is next contended that the learned Rent Controller did not pass any order for deposit of rent hence the ejectment order on the ground default was illegal.
7. We afraid that the contentions raised by the learned counsel are devoid of force.
8. The effect of agreement of sale was examined in Khawaja Anwar Hussain's case reported in PLD 1986 Kar. 74 and it was held that such contract would not create any interest in or charge on such property, and A the tenant of premises would continue to be tenant and shall be bound to pay rent.
9. It is an admitted position that the petitioner came into the possession of the disputed premises as a tenant. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No,3 entered into a sale agreement with the petitioner on 1742-1999 and that the petitioner has paid the rent to the authorized attorney of respondent No,3 up to the date of the execution of sale agreement. It is, therefore, clear that the petitioner was in possession of the disputed premises not in pursuance of the said agreement of sale but by virtue of his being tenant in the premises in question.
10. In the case of Iqbal and others v. Mst. Rabia Bibi and another reported in PLD 1991 SC 242, the Honourable Supreme Court was pleased to observe as under:-- "Be that as it may, in some recent judgments this Court has taken the view that in case like the present one, here the sale agreement or any other transaction relied upon by a tenant is seriously and bona fide disputed by the landlord, the appellant/tenant cannot be allowed to retain the possession during the litigation; where he continues to deny the ownership of the landlord who had inducted him as a tenant, without any condition and/or reservation, It has been ruled that in such cases although the tenant has a right to adduce evidence and take a short time for that purpose to remain occupation despite having set up a hostile title which is denied by the landlord; but on the well-known bar of estoppel in this behalf, he (the tenant) cannot be permitted to remain-in occupation and fight the litigation for long time even for decades."
' The legal proposition has further been affirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court in Nabi Bux v.
Mst. Naseem 2000 SCM R 1604.
11. The other contention raised by the learned counsel with regard to passing order of deposit of rent is absolutely misconceived. It was the petitioner himself, who disputed the relationship of landlord and tenant and committed default in payment of rent, quite wilfully and deliberately. In such circumstances, it was not mandatory requirement to issue directions to the petitioner for payment of rent.
12. The upshot of the above discussion is that in view of the fact that the petitioner was in occupation of the disputed premises in the capacity of tenant and admittedly he has not paid the rent, he has committed a default. The rent application was rightly allowed and the First Rent Appeal, was lawfully dismissed. The findings of fact recorded by two forums below are just, proper legal and valid. We do not find any perversity in the orders impugned herein. The Constitutional petition appears to have been frivolously filed which is dismissed in limine alongwith the listed applications.
' These are the reasons for short order, dated 26-12-2001. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.