Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 436 of 1981, decided on 2nd May, 1981.

(On petition from the judgment and order dated 8‑3‑1981, passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No. 7317 of 1980).

‑‑ S. 13(6) and Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑Question of title‑Observation as to, in High Court's judgment‑Prejudice‑Peti tioner having vehemently contended before lower Courts as to non existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between himself and respondent due to sale in favour of respondent being invalid and sale by same vendees in petitioner's favour being valid, High Court, held, left with no option but to consider all material placed before it and to give a decision on such question and it does not lie in petitioner's mouth to criticise impugned judgment on ground of observations of High Court being likely to affect mind of trial Judge while deciding civil suit pending between parties.

Malik Muhammad Qayyum, Advocate and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate on‑Record for Petitioner.

Kh. Hamid Mukhtar, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Quresh4 Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents. .

Date of hearing : 2nd May, 1981.

‑This petition is directed against the judgment of the High Court dated 9‑3‑1981 dismissing the petitioner's writ petition id rent case.

2. The petition relates to a house bearing No. S. VI‑R‑46/2. The house which was evacuee property was purchased by the petitioner through auction. He surrendered half of it to Shamsuddin and Fakhruddin through ac association. On the same day the aforementioned two persons entered into an agreement with the petitioner to sell the house back to him. On their failure to do so, the petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of the said agreement against Shamsuddin and Fakhruddin. A compromise was, however, effected and it was agreed that if the petitioner paid Rs. 12,000 to Fakhruddin, etc. defendants within two months, then the suit would be decreed otherwise it would be dismissed. The petitioner could not pay the full amount in time but with mutual consent the payments were made by him from time to time. Full amount was finally paid to him on 23‑12‑1976 and sale‑deed was executed by Shamsuddin and Fakhruddin in favour of the petitioner, Earlier, however, on 23r5‑1976, Shamsuddin and Fakhruddin had sold their share (one half of the property) to Abdul Hafiz respondent through their attorney Malik Muhammad Bakhsh.

3. On 10‑1‑1974, Abdul Hafiz, respondent, No. 1, filed an ejectment application against the petitioner before the Rent Controller. The petitioner denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent and himself denying the validity of the sale of the property by Shamsuddin and Fakhruddin in favour of the respondent. He also took up the plea that notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, had not been served on him. On evidence led before him, the Rent Controller by his order dated 12‑9‑1975, held that relationship of tenant and landlord existed between the petitioner and the respondent, but on the second issue he held that no notice as required by section 30 of the above‑noted Act had been served on Rao Ahmad Saeed Khan, petitioner‑tenant. He therefore, dismissed the ejectment petition.

4. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said order on the issue of relationship of tenant and landlord between him and the respondent. This was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge on 16‑12‑1975.

5. About a year later, on 23‑11‑1976 Abdul Hafiz, respondent, filed another ejectment petition against Rao Saeed Ahmad Khan, petitioner, on the grounds of default, subletting and damage to the property. The petitioner again denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between Abdul Hafiz (respondent) and himself. He also denied the validity of the sale deed in favour of the respondent and relied on the sale‑deed executed by Shamsuddin and Fakhruddin in his favour on 23‑12‑1976 (Annexure A') at pages 43 to 46 of paper book).

6. After considering the facts of the case, the learned Rent Controller accepted the ejectment petition holding that the property had validly been purchased by Abdul Hafiz respondent and the sale‑deed in petitioner's favour was of no legal effect. He, therefore, ordered the petitioner ejectment.

7. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said order which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 27‑6‑1980. But, earlier, on 1‑3‑1981, the petitioner also filed a civil suit for a declaration that he was owner of the house in question.

8. Aggrieved by the dismissal of his appeal by the Additional District Judge he filed a writ petition in the High Court but that too was dismissed vide the impugned judgment. Hence the present petition.

9. His only grievance before us is that the High Court while deciding the writ petition, has discussed the question of title of the house in dispute at great length and held that the sale in favour of the respondents was valid and that the observations of the High Court in the impugned judgment are likely to affect the mind of the learned trial Judge while deciding the civil suit. He, therefore, prays that the impugned judgment of the High Court be set aside. We are afraid, the petitioner's grievance is misconceived. It is he who had vehemently urged before the Rent Controller and the higher Courts, including the High Court, that the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between Abdul Hafeez, respondent, and himself because the sale by Shamsuddin and Fakhruddin in favour of the respondent was invalid while the sale by them in his (petitioner) favour was valid. The High Court had, therefore, no option but to consider all the material placed before it by the parties and to give a decision on that question. It there fore, does not lie in the petitioner's mouth to criticise the impugned judgment on that account.

10. The petition is, therefore, dismissed as being without any merit.

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.