1. ' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 2-4-2002, whereby writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
2. ' Facts briefly are that respondent No,3 Mst. Shaheen Younis filed petition under section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 against the petitioner on 17-3-1998, on the ground of default as well as personal need. The petitioner resisted the claim and denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. Accordingly issue was framed qua the existence of relationship of tenancy to resolve this controversy. The parties led their evidence. The learned Rent Controller through order dated 19-5-2002, accepted the application and directed the petitioner to deliver vacant possession within four months of the order. The petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, vide judgment dated 15-11-2000. The petitioner further challenged the appellate order through Writ Petition No,2041 of 2001, which has been dismissed through the impugned order. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.
3. The learned counsel has argued that the property under dispute was purchased by the petitioner and the husband of the respondent No,3 out of partnership business respecting which a civil suit is pending. An argument has been advanced that till the said suit is decided, the petitioner cannot be ejected from the disputed place.
4. ' We have considered the contentions of the learned counsel and have gone through the documents appended with this petition. It is reflected from the perusal thereof that the petitioner's suit was filed as far back as on 2nd July, 1991, which has not yet been decided in spite of passage of more than ten years. As reflected from the documents the title of the property, vests in the respondent No,3. She has successfully substantiated her claim, that she is the exclusive owner of the property under dispute. All the utility bills i.e,, the electricity, water and other charges are in the name of the respondent. She is also shown as the owner in the record of Excise and Taxation Department. In these circumstances, no illegality has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the impugned order, which .Has maintained the concurrent findings of the two Courts below. Resultantly this petition is dismissed and the .