BARKAT MASIH vs MANZOOR AHMAD (deceased) through L.Rs,s

ORDER

' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--- This petition calls in question order, dated 19th April, 2002 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby Writ Petition filed by petitioner Barkat Masih has been dismissed.

2. Precisely stating the facts of the case are that respondents vide application, submitted toward the year 1986-87 before the Rent Controller, Lahore, sought ejectment of the petitioner from the room situated in House No,16, Street No,31, Canal Park, Lahore constructed on Khasra No,1650 (details of property mentioned in the ejectment application). The petitioner contested the ejectment proceedings mainly on the ground that relationship of landlord and tenant does not exist between the parties. The Rent Controller accordingly framed the following issues:--

(a) Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties.

(b) Relief.

3. Parties evidence in support of their respective contentions was recorded and vide judgment, dated 25th January, 1992 it was concluded that relationship of landlord and tenant did exist between the parties, therefore directed ejectment of petitioner from the premises. Appeal filed by petitioner was also dismissed on 18th December, 1995 by the Additional District. Judge, Lahore.

Against both these orders, petitioner availed remedy before the High Court by invoking its jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan but without any success as the same has also been dismissed on 19th March, 2002. As such instant petition has been filed for leave the appeal.

4. Learned counsel contended that petitioner is in possession of the property owned by the respondents and in fact he wanted to take over the possession of his property in respect of which he enjoys rights of ownership.

5. We are afraid this contention cannot be allowed to be raised because before the learned First Appellate Court and High Court a limited question was raised with regard to relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, besides it ejectment order has been passed by the Rent Controller in respect of property description of which has been mentioned in the eviction application, therefore, arguments being devoid of force is accordingly repelled.

6. Learned counsel then contented that the relationship of landlord and tenant does not exist between the parties, therefore, petitioner has also filed a suit for the purpose of determination of the rights of the parties, as such according to him till the decision of the said suit, ejectment of petitioner cannot take place. This argument is not available to him in view of law laid down by this Court in the judgment reported as Rehmatullah v. Ali Muhammad and another 1983 SCM R 1064.

Even otherwise it is settled principle of law that if a tenant denies the proprietary rights of the landlord then he is bound to first of all deliver the possession of the premises in-question and then to contest his proprietary rights in the property and if ultimately he succeeds in getting relief from the Court and decree is passed in his favor then he can enforce the same according to law with all its consequences.

8. No other point has been argued by the learned counsel for petitioner.

' Thus for the foregoing reason we see no merit in this petition as such the same is dismissed and leave declined.