Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 272 of 1978, decided on 17th May 1978.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court dated 17‑4‑78 in C. M. No. 1984‑C/1978).

---Ss. 13(6) & 15(4)‑Ejectment proceedings‑Deposit of arrears of rent‑Petitioner denying existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between parties and have propriety of High Court's order requiring him to deposit arrears of rent‑Person claimed to be real owner of house appearing before Rent Controller, disclaiming all rights in house and further supporting respondents' claim to be owners and landlords of premises in, dispute‑Decree of civil Court also declaring ownership of house vesting in respondents‑Petitioner, held, avoiding to pay rent on one pretext or other‑Petition dismissed.

S. M. Tayyab, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Kh. Wali Mohammad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 17th May, 1978.

.‑The two petitioners are aggrieved by an order made by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court on the 17th of April 1978, by which he has directed that, during the pendency of the second appeal filed by the respondent, the petitioners should deposit in Court arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 6,900 from June 1974 to March 1978, within one month, and also deposit the current monthly rent and future ref at the rate of Rs. 150 per mensem before the 15th of each succeeding month.

On the 19th of May 1975, the respondents had filed an application for the ejectment of the petitioners from a house situate in Multan city on the ground of default in the payment of rent from the 1st of June 1974, damage to the property, and for personal bona fide use. The petitioners contested this application on the ground that the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist. between the parties. They asserted that the house belonged to one Riaz Hussain and his brother and not to the respondents Nazar Abbas etc. This issue was decided against the petitioners by the learned Rent Controller by his order dated the 1st of July 1976. Among other evidence, the respondents had also produced the aforesaid Riaz Hussain who disclaimed the ownership of the house and affirmed the position of the respondents as the landlords vis‑a‑vis the petitioners.

However, the petitioners' appeal was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Multan, by his order dated the 13th of November 1977. He held that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was not proved on the record, and, accordingly he dismissed the respondents' ejectment application.

Aggrieved by this appellate order the respondents filed a second appeal in the High Court which, as already stated, is still pending. The learned Judge has, however, made a direction under section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, read with section 15(4) thereof, for the deposit of rent mentioned earlier. He has observed that prima facie the appellants before him, namely, the respondents in the present petition, had been declared as owners under a decree obtained by them from the civil Court on the 7th of January 1978, and, therefore, they were entitled to an order for the deposit of the rent.

It is contended by Mr. S. M. Tayyab, the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the learned Judge in the High Court was in error in relying on a decree by the respondents after institution of the ejectment application on the 19th of May 1965. He submits that the question of the relationship between the parties had to be decided on the basis of the facts existing on the date of the application and not with reference ‑to any subsequent event. He contends that the house was taken on rent by the petitioners from Riaz Hussain who was a co‑owner, and not from the present respondents.

We see no merit in these submissions. We have already stated that said Riaz Hussain appeared before the Rent Controller and disclaimed all rights in the house and supported the claim of the respondents to be the owners and landlords of the premises in dispute. On this evidence alone, the respondents would prima facie be entitled to an order under section 13(6) of the Ordinance. However, in the meantime they have also obtained a decree from the civil Court declaring their ownership of the house in question. The learned Judge in the High Court was entitled to take note of this decree for the purpose of making the preliminary order complained of by the petitioners. The petitioners do not appear to have paid rent of the disputed period to any landlord whatsoever, as the learned counsel was not in a position to satisfy us on this point by production of any cogent evidence. It does appear to be a case where the petitioners want to avoid their liability to pay rent on one pretext or the other. This is no the intention of the law regulating the relationship between landlords and tenants of urban property.

For the foregoing reasons the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

Petition dismissed

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.