Muhammad Sharif Versus Fayyaz Ahmad
Sultan Tanvir Ahmad, J .--- This appeal is directed against order dated 02.02.2022 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, Lahore Cantt., whereby, the following relief is granted in favour of the respondent:-
"....Therefore, the titled ejectment petition is accepted and the respondent is directed to hand over the vacant possession of the rented premises 986, Tufail Road, Saddar Bazar, Lahore Cantt to the petitioner within 30 days, failing which the petitioner will have the right to obtain possession of the rented premises through execution of the order from the competent court of law.
The petitioners will have the right to receive the arrears of rent as per ejectment petition."
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned order is against the law and the facts of the case. He further contended that the ejectment-petition is with respect to property No. 986, whereas, the rent agreement relates to the property No. 986-A, Tufail Road, Lahore Cantt. Added that the learned Rent Controller has ignored that from 13.08.2000 one Azam Ali is the tenant in property, therefore, the order to pay arrears of rent from the said date is not tenable in law.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed this appeal.
4. Heard. The ownership of the respondent with respect to the properties Nos. 986 and 986-A is not denied, who sought the eviction of the appellant claiming that he has rented out the hall measuring 32 x 13 sq.ft. to the respondent. As per the stance of the respondent the above mentioned properties are adjacent to each other and wall between the shops was removed at the time of renting out the premises. The fact that the shops are adjacent to each other is not denied by the learned counsel for the appellant.
5. The appellant appeared before the learned Rent Controller on 03.02.2021. His signatures and thumb impressions were obtained on the margin of the order-sheet. Azam Ali also filed an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 to be impleaded as a party. The appellant recorded statement through his learned counsel with respect to the application of Azam Ali on 22.09.2021 (available at page No. 27 of this file). After conceding that the appellant gained possession of the premises as a tenant, he took a stance that Azam Ali became subsequent tenant of the respondent, however, in paragraph No. 1 of the said statement it is clearly stated that the appellant is not a witness of any subsequent arrangement with Azam Ali.
6. The learned Rent Controller after hearing the arguments of the concerned, rejected the application of Azam Ali vide order dated 29.09.2021. This order was never challenged by Azam Ali, which attained finality. Instead of raising any challenge against order dated 29.09.2021 at the relevant time, while this appeal was pending an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (C. M. No. 05-C of 2022) has instituted on the same grounds which were available to him before the learned Rent Tribunal.
7. Record further reflects that the appellant despite availing a number of opportunities to file reply to the ejectment-petition has failed to do the same. He was proceeded against ex-parte on 15.11.2021. Resultantly, the learned Rent Controller proceeded to record ex-parte evidence. No request was made before the learned Rent Controller to permit him to participate in the process of evidence or to cross-examine the witnesses of the respondent. The affidavits (examination-in-chief) of three PWs were brought on record and since they were not cross-examined, the same went un-rebutted. The default on the part of the appellant also stood established. The three PWs clearly deposed that the premises in question was rented out in the shape of a hall. Needless to say that the relationship of landlord and tenant is an admitted fact.
8. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the appellant has failed to make out any case. Therefore, this appeal as well as application / C. M. No. 05 of 2022 are dismissed. No order as to costs.
UN/M-126/L Appeal dismissed.