' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.---The petitioner filed, before the Rent Controller, an application for eviction of late Muhammad Boota, the predecessor-in-interest of the present respondents Nos.1 to 8 from the disputed property on the grounds of default in payment of rent and for personal need.
As many as 5 issues were framed by the Rent Controller on the pleadings of the parties. During the course of hearing of the ejectment petition Muhammad Boota deceased filed a Writ Petition No,6883 of 1991 against the direction of Rent Controller to deposit the arrears of rent which was dismissed by order dated 22-1-1992 of the Lahore High Court. The Rent Controller by order, dated 9- 9-1991 struck off defence of late Muhammad Boota under section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 and accepted the ejectment petition of the petitioner. The appeal of Muhammad Boota deceased was accepted by the Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura on 8- 4-1992. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition No,4193 of 1992 against the aforesaid order, dated 8-4- 1992 which was dismissed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore by the impugned judgment, dated 23- 1-2002. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the property in dispute had been duly transferred to the petitioner by Transfer Order of the Settlement and Rehabilitation Department.
Late Muhammad Boota was inducted by the petitioner as a tenant of the property in dispute in the year 1986 who defaulted in the making of payment of the rent from the year 1988 onward. The learned counsel submitted that the defence of the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents had been struck off. Thereafter, the stance taken by him of the denial of the relationship of being a tenant under the petitioner could not be considered by the Appellate Authority as well as by the Lahore High Court. It was lastly argued that the record of the Excise and Taxation Department in favour of late Muhammad Boota was not relevant qua the Transfer Order and that there was no misreading or non-reading of the evidence of AW-1, AW-2 and AW-3 by the Rent Controller.
3. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The lamabande for the years 1945-46 clearly shows that late Elahi Bukhsh father of late Muhammad Boota, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents was in occupation of the suit property.
Similarly the record of the Excise and Taxation Department particularly Exhibit `P-6' shows the property to be in the self-occupation of the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents. On the other hand, the petitioner took the position that he had inducted late Muhammad Boota as the tenant of the suit property in 1986. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the question of ownership of title of the petitioner qua the suit property had lost its significance for the purposes of determining the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The impugned judgment
(sic) does this Court. No substantial question of law of public importance is involved in this case.
4. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any substance in this petition which is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs.