' This S.A.O. Has been filed against the judgment, dated 12-7-2003 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Haroonabad by which, judgment/order, dated 19-5-2003 of learned Rent Controller, Haroonabad was upheld.
2. Facts, in brief, are that appellant got on lease a plot measuring 7 Kanals, 6 Marlas, situated in Chak No,52/4-R; Tehsil Haroonabad, District Bahawalnagar in the year 1962/63 at the rate of Rs,5,000 per annum from one Mirza Saeed Ahmad Baig, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents. The plot in dispute was obtained on lease for the purpose of construction of cinema upon it. As the appellant defaulted in the payment of rent/lease money, the respondents filed the instant ejectment petition on 2-9-2000 against the appellant in the Court of learned Civil Judge, with the powers of Rent Controller, Haroonabad. The appellant submitted written reply to the ejectment petition, in which he pleaded that predecessor-in-interest of respondents had entered into an agreement to sell, of the land in dispute, in his favour, therefore, there existed no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was also stated therein that the appellant had filed a suit for specific performance of contract on the basis of that agreement to sell, dated 30-9-1998, which was pending adjudication in the Civil Court. An application for stay of proceedings before learned Rent Controller was also moved by the appellant while the respondents filed an application for decision of the ejectment application without framing of any issue. Both the parties submitted reply to the respective applications of their adversary. Learned Rent Controller decided the ejectment petition on 19-5-2003 without framing the issue with regard to the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Learned Rent Controller was of the view that the tenant was not competent to resist the maintainability of ejectment petition against him on the basis of sale agreement only, allegedly executed by the predecessor-in-interest of the present owners, in his favour. The appeal filed against this judgment/order was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Haroonabad on 12-7-2003.
3. The main plank upon which learned counsel for the appellant has built the edifice is that learned Rent Controller has illegally failed to frame the issue with regard to the relationship of landlord and tenant. According to the learned counsel, learned Rent Controller was bound to frame such issue, and then to call for the production of evidence of the parties and thereafter to decide the matter in issue. As per contention of the learned counsel, the failure of learned Rent Controller to observe this mandatory procedure has prejudiced his case.
4. Opposing this argument, learned counsel for the respondents has replied that there was no such compulsion upon the learned Rent Controller to frame the issue of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties in the given circumstances of the case.
5. I have considered the arguments and examined the record.
6. The crux of the case is whether framing of issue was necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case and whether there was failure of justice due to non-observance of this procedure. The Court of learned Rent Controller is not a Court in stricto senso. The provisions of Civil A Procedure Code are not applicable to that forum. The learned Rent Controller acts as quasi judicial authority.
In Syed Zahid Hussain Zaidi v. Muhammad Iqbal and another PLD 1981 Lah. 215, it was held that Rent Controller was not bound to frame issues and the remand of case by District Judge for recasting of the issues was set aside.
7. In Ghulam Rasool v. Mian Khurshid Ahmad 2000 SCMR 632 omission to frame formal issue of relationship of landlord and tenant was held not to cause any prejudice to the tenant. The parties and the learned Rent Controller were very well conscious of the matter in dispute. Application moved by the respondents requesting the learned Rent Controller not to frame the issues was known to the appellant who had filed reply to it. He had not insisted to the framing of such issue.
Moreover, facts were admitted with regard to the matter in issue.
8. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the appellant was tenant and was holding the property in dispute under the tenancy of respondents, the owners. His plea was that he had purchased the property in dispute through an agreement to sell, dated 30-9-1998 but this agreement was termed by the respondents to be a forged and fictitious document, having been prepared by the appellant, after filing of the ejectment petition. According to the contention of the respondents, even agreement to sell could not grant any benefit to the tenant, as the suit for specific performance of contract was subjudice before learned Civil Judge who was competent to adjudicate upon the genuineness or otherwise of the alleged agreement. The agreement to sell does not create any right in the property itself. It grants the only right to get the contract completed through decree for specific performance of contract from the Civil Court, if the alleged vendors had refused to perform and execute the alleged contract. I have seen the copy of the agreement to sell, produced by the parties before me in the Court, which has been appended with this S.A.O. From the agreement to sell, no mention has been made with regard to the existence of tenancy of the appellant. It has not been stated therein that after execution of this agreement to sell, the relationship of landlord and tenant would stand terminated. In these circumstances, no useful purpose would be served in remanding case to the Rent Controller for framing of issues. It may be pointed out here that learned Rent Controller has not to decide the fact of sale and purchase allegedly made between the appellant and predecessor-in-interest of the respondents.
The Civil Court, seized of the matter, is competent to decide such dispute and if appellant turns successful in that suit he would have the chance for the recovery of possession, in case of his ejectment. Till the decision of the civil suit proceedings of this case (ejectment petition) cannot be stayed or stalled as held in Iqbal and 6 others v. Msi. Rabia Bibi and another PLD 1991 SC 242. The intention of suit for specific performance of contract cannot furnish a ground to the appellant to get the proceedings before the Rent Controller stayed as held in Muhammad Amjad v. Mst. Rehana Kausar 2001 YLR 939. No prejudice has been caused to the appellant due to the non-framing of issue of relationship of landlord and tenant because relationship of landlord and tenant is an admitted fact, while the agreement to sell is a disputed fact, and the foundation being laid by the appellant on the alleged disputed agreement to sell was to be decided by the Civil Court and not the Rent Controller. Accordingly, I uphold the concurrent findings of fact delivered by both the Courts below and dismiss the instant appeal with lc no order as to costs.