--Agreement to sell--Deniel of tenancy by petitioner and also filed a suit for specific performance--Decreed to extent of recovery of earnest money-

 PLJ 2021 Lahore 462

Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 (VII of 2009)--

----S. 15--Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 199--Ejectment petition--Accepted to extent of vacation of demised premises--Appeals--Dismissed--Agreement to sell--Deniel of tenancy by petitioner and also filed a suit for specific performance--Decreed to extent of recovery of earnest money--Civil revision--Allowed--Challenge to--Concurrent findings--Petitioner admitted that he was tenant of Respondent No. 5, who sold suit property to Respondents No. 3 & 4, as such, relationship of landlord and tenant exists, hence Special Judge (Rent) rightly passed order for eviction of petitioner from demised premised--Claim of Respondents No. 3 & 4 regarding recovery of arrears of rent from petitioner w.e.f March, 2010 is concerned, Respondent No. 5, admitted execution of agreement to sell in favour of petitioner--Petitioner filed suit for specific performance of said agreement dated 29.12.2009 on 04.03.2011 and thereafter, Respondents No. 3 & 4 came up with plea of recovery of rent/arrears etc.--Courts below rightly discarded claim of Respondents No. 3 & 4 for recovery of rent--Counsel for parties have not been able to point out any illegality or material irregularity in orders passed by Courts below and have also not identified any jurisdictional defect--Concurrent findings of facts are against parties which are not called for any interference by this Court in absence of any illegality or any other error of jurisdiction--Petition dismissed. [Pp. 464] A, B & C

200& MLD 1710 ref.

Ch. Irshad Ullah Chatha, Advocate for Petitioner.

Messrs M. Mushtaq Ahmad Dhoon and Naila Mushtaq Dhoon, Advocates, for Respondent No. 3 & 4.

Date of hearing: 25.11.2020.

 PLJ 2021 Lahore 462
Present: Ch. Muhammad Iqbal, J.
SAEED AHMAD--Petitioner
versus
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE etc.--Respondents
W.P. No. 54948 of 2017, heard on 25.11.2020.

Judgment

Through this single judgment, I intend to decide the titled Writ Petition No. 54948/2017 as well as Writ Petition No. 76768/2017, as both these petitions have arisen out of the same judgment.

2. Through these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 03.05.2016, passed by the learned Special Judge (Rent), Sialkot whereby the ejectment petition filed by the Respondents No. 3 & 4 was partly allowed.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the Respondents No. 3 & applicants filed an ejectment petition under the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 against the petitioner in respect of the shop, fully described in paragraph No. 3 of the ejectment petition, on the ground that the Respondents No. 3 & 4 had purchased the suit property through a registered sale deed No. 676 dated 24.02.2010. They further alleged that the petitioner has made default in the payment of rent, as such, he may be evicted from the demised premises. The petitioner contested the said ejectment petition on the ground that he is not a tenant of the Respondents No. 3 & 4 as he has purchased the suit property through an agreement to sell from father of the Respondent No. 3. The learned Special Judge (Rent), Sialkot framed issues, recorded evidence of the parties and finally partly accepted the ejectment petition to the extent of vacation of demised premises and dismissed the rest of the claim of the respondents vide order dated 03.05.2016. Both the parties filed appeals which were dismissed by the learned appellate Court vide judgment dated 19.06.2017. Hence, both these writ petitions.

4. 1 have heard the arguments of learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

5. Admittedly, the petitioner entered into an agreement to sell with Respondent No. 5, Muhammad Siddique, owner of the demised premised but Respondent No. 5 transferred the demised premises in favour of Respondents No. 3 & 4. The petitioner also filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell which was decreed to the extent of recovery of earnest money alongwith compensation from

Respondent No. 5, Muhammad Siddique which matter has been decided by this Court vide judgment of even date passed in Civil Revision No. 70913/2017). The petitioner admitted that he was tenant of Muhammad Siddique, Respondent No. 5, who sold the suit property to Respondents No. 3 & 4, as such, the relationship of landlord and tenant exists, hence the learned Special Judge (Rent) rightly passed order for eviction of the petitioner from the demised premised.

6. As regard the claim of Respondents No. 3 & 4 regarding recovery of arrears of rent from the petitioner w.e.f March, 2010 is concerned, the Respondent No. 5, Muhammad Siddique, admitted execution of agreement to sell dated 29.12.2009 in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner filed suit for specific performance of the said agreement dated 29.12.2009 on 04.03.2011 and thereafter, the Respondents No. 3 & 4 came up with the plea of recovery of rent/ arrears etc. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the learned Courts below rightly discarded the claim of the Respondents No. 3 & 4 for recovery of rent.

7. Learned counsel for the parties have not been able to point out any illegality or material irregularity in the impugned orders passed by the learned Courts below and have also not identified any jurisdictional defect. The concurrent findings of facts are against the parties which are not called for any interference by this Court in absence of any illegality or any other error of jurisdiction. Reliance is placed on the case of Zulfiqar Ali v. Judge, Family Court and 7 others (2007 MLD 1710).

8. Resultantly, both these writ petitions are hereby dismissed being devoid of any force.

(Y.A.)  Petitions dismissed