Find a Lawyer

Second Appeal from Original Order No. 580 of 1979, decided on 21st December, 1980.

‑‑ S. 13 read with Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilita tion) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 30‑Ejectment‑Record showing respondent landlord seeking ejectment of petitioner‑tenant only from Chaubara situated on his shop‑‑Petitioner initially denying relationship of land lord and tenant between parties but subsequently his counsel making statement admitting such relationship of landlord and tenant‑Evidence also showing requisite notice having been served upon petitioner-- Unanimous findings of Courts below, held, need no interference.

Miss Tasneem Sarwar Chauhan for Appellant.

M. Qamar‑ud‑Din Meo for Respondent.

Date of hearing 21st December, 1980.

This appeal is directed against order dated 26‑5‑1979 of the learned Addl. District Judge whereby he dismissed the appeal and maintained the order of ejectment passed by the learned Rent Controller on 4‑10‑1978 against the appellant.

2. The relevant facts of the case are that the respondent filed ejectment application against the appellant from the chaubara of shop No. 59/60 situated at Tulamba Town as described in the site plan attached with the ejectment petition on the ground of personal use and occupation, damage done to the property and default in payment of rent w. e. f. 1‑8‑1967 to 31‑3‑1970. The appellant resisted ejectment petition and denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. He also pleaded that no valid notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Comp. & Rehab.) Act was served upon him. The learned Rent Controller framed following preliminary issues;

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

(2) Whether the petitioner gave a valid notice to the respondent

The learned Rent Controller on the basis of the concession made by learned counsel for the appellant decided the issue in respect of relationship of landlord and tenant in favour of the respondent. He also relied on the permanent transfer deed Exh. P,/2 Issued in favour of the respondent. The admission was made by learned counsel on the basis of the statement made by him on 11‑1‑1971. As regards issue No. 2 he evaluated the evidence on the record and came to the conclusion that notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Comp. & Rehab.) Act was served upon the appellant. On the basis of these findings, vide order dated 4‑10‑1978 he accepted the application of the respondent and directed the appellant to vacate the disputed property within 45 days of the order. The appellant then assailed the aforementioned order in appeal which was also dismissed on 26‑5‑1979 by the learned Addl. District Judge, Multan.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the admission made by learned counsel for the appellant was against law and therefore he was not bound by the same. It was submitted that chaubara in possession of the appellant was not transferred exclusively to the respondent but jointly with one Nazir Ali son of Ata Muhammad, as such the respondent could not maintain ejectment petition without a regular partition of property between the two transferees. As regards service of notice, learned counsel submitted that the same was not done in accordance with law and the ejectment petition was liable to dismissal on this ground alone.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that in fact the respondent was exclusive transferee of the chaubara in dispute as it was situated on his shop alone. It was pointed out that there was courtyard ahead to the chaubara situated on the roof of the adjoining shop transferred to Nazir Ali and the respondent did not seek ejectment of the appellant from that portion which was not transferred to him, He referred to order dated 13‑2‑1961 passed by learned Additional Settlement Commissioner, Multan, certified copy whereof was produced on the record to show that the respondent was only transferee of chaubara marked as P. E. if. and Q on the shop of the appellant and his claim seeking transfer of the courtyard situated on the shop of Nazir Ali was rejected. He pointed out that application of ejectment of the appellant was filed only from chaubara which exclusively stood transferred to the respondent and was situated on the shop of the respondent.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant, record. The perusal of the documents on the file established that the respondent sought ejectment of the appellant only from the chaubara situated on hi shop. The appellant initially denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties but later on, his counsel made a statement to the effect that relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties.

6. As regards the other issue, the postman who delivered the notice (A. D.) to the appellant had categorically stated that signatures on Exh. P. 1. were that of the appellant. The respondent produced copy of notice Exh. P. 3 and also postal receipt. The evidence on the record therefore established that the requisite notice was served upon the appellant.

7. The unanimous findings of the learned courts below on the above referred issues being unexceptionable are not liable to interference in second appeal. Neither misreading of evidence nor omission to consider material evidence on the record has been pointed out which would tend to vitiate the correctness of the impugned orders.

8. In this view of the matter, I find no force in this appeal and‑dismiss it with no order as to costs. The appellant shall deliver possession of the disputed property to the respondent within one month from the date of this order.

M. Y. M. Appeal 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.