' Brief facts for the disposal of this Constitutional petition are that respondent No,1 had filed an application under section 13 of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1979 for ejecting his tenant Shamim Ahmad from Shop No,1 shown in the site-plan annexed with the said petition, on the grounds of default in payment of rent, sub-letting a portion of the shop without his permission and bona fide personal need.
2. On 27-10-1999 an order was passed by the Rent Controller for eviction of the said tenant on account of default in compliance of an order passed under, section 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance.
3. On 19-2-2001 the landlord filed an application before the Executing Court alleging that on the appeal filed by the tenant, Additional District Judge, Chichawatni had directed him (tenant) to hand over vacant possession of the shop by 15-2-2001 but the tenant has not complied with the said order inasmuch as he had not delivered to him possession of that portion of the shop which was sublet by him. It was requested that complete possession of the shop be delivered to him.
4. Thereafter on 23-2-2001 the petitioner filed an objection petition alleging that on the basis of ejectment order, respondent No,1 wants to evict him from a place which is neither Shop No,1 nor a portion thereof but is entirely another place which was rented out to him by respondent No,l.
5. The objection petition was opposed by respondent No,1 on the ground that the objector was in possession of portion of the disputed shop which was sublet to him by the tenant. It was denied that objector was his tenant.
6. The said objection petition was dismissed on 22-6-2001 by the Rent Controller on the ground that order of ejectment could be executed against a person having come into possession through tenant and claim of tenancy by third person/objector must be supported by private of contract between him and the landlord whereas the petitioner/objector had failed to produce any rent note/rent deed to show that he is tenant of respondent No,1.
7. Petitioner's/Objector's appeal against the aforesaid order was also dismissed by Additional District Judge, Chichawatni who maintained the findings of the Rent Controller that relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between the objector and respondent No,1 as neither any rent note or rent-need was produced in support of that contention nor the receipts produced were executed by respondent No, 1.
8. In this Constitutional petition the aforesaid orders of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Court respectively passed on 22-6-2001 and 3-6-2002 are called in question as illegal and without jurisdiction inasmuch as they were passed without applying mind, without framing issues on the objection petition and without affording opportunity to the petitioner to prove his version.
9. Writ petition is strongly opposed by Malik Muhammad Latif Khokhar, Advocate for respondent No,1.
10. Arguments heard. Writ petition and its annexures perused.
11. A perusal of the impugned orders shows that they are reasonable and conclusions drawn are based on sound and plausible reasoning. A perusal of site-plan "Naqsha Nazari" annexed with the objection petition which has been produced by the petitioner shows that the place in possession of the petitioner is, in fact, a portion of Shop No,1 regarding which order of eviction has been passed. In the circumstances, when according to the site-plan produced by the petitioner, the place in his possession was a portion of Shop No,1 regarding which ejectment, order is passed, when the petitioner did not allege that his rent agreement was oral and when he did not produce any rent note or rent-deed in support of his claim of being tenant of the respondent in some other property, there was nothing before the Rent Controller for proceeding any further and he was not required to frame issues and record evidence on a baseless claim having no foundation.
12. Concurrent findings of fact recorded by two Courts below that petitioner is not tenant of respondent No,1 and that he is in possession of a portion of the disputed shop and not any independent shop, are based on plausible reasoning. The Courts below have neither exceeded jurisdiction nor acted without jurisdiction.
' Writ petition being devoid of any merit, is accordingly dismissed.