' KARAMAT NAZIR BHANDARI, J.--The respondents Nos. 1 to 4 filed an ejectment petition under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 against the petitioner, on the ground of default. The petitioner denied that the respondents were the owners. He also denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. From the rival claims of the parties relevant issues were framed and tried. The Rent Controller, Bahawalpur held in favour of the existence of relationship and accepted the eviction petition vide judgment dated 1-3-2002. Petitioner's appeal by the District Judge, Bahawalpur was dismissed on 29-4-2002. Petitioner's second appeal (S.A.O. No,7 of 2002) was also dismissed.
Incidentallyagainst the appellate judgment, Province of Punjab (respondent No,5) claiming to be owner of the suit shop also filed appeal (S.A.O. No,14 of2002) which has also been dismissed on 5- 11-2002 by the High Court onthe short ground that this appellant did not challenge the order of the Rent Controller before the District judge. It is the tenant alone who haspreferred this petition for leave to appeal against the consolidated judgment of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench.
Respondent No,5 has apparently given up.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the petition has repeatedly urged that the respondents were not the owners of the suit property and that their sale-deed/P.T.O. Is forged.
3. Learned counsel admitted that his suit seeking determination of title is already pending. It is well- settled that question of title is not determined by the Rent Controller. In view of the pendency of the suit, we would not like to comment one way or other on the points raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. Suffice it to say that the High Court seems to have correctly held in favour of existence of relationship on the basis of `Iqrarnama' (Exh.A.1) and money orders receipts (Exh.A.20 to Exh. A.50).
The submissions that these documents are forged have not been accepted by the three Courts below and after hearing the learned counsel, we find no reason to take a different view.
4. For the above reasons, this petition is hereby dismissed, however, petitioner is granted three months time from today to vacate the premises in question.