Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition‑ No. 905 of 1981, decided on 30th January, 1983.

(From the judgment and decree dated 6‑4‑1981 of the Lahore High Court passed in Review Application No. 19/C/1980 filed in S: A. O. No. 637'of 1978).

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑

--Art. 185(3) read with West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordi nance (VI of 1959), S. 13‑Landlord and tenant, relationship of Question already decided concurrently by Controller and first appellate authority against tenant‑Suit challenging transaction of sale of dis puted property pending a appellate stage‑‑Finding of High Court against petitioner‑tenant‑Held, cannot be interfered with in circum stances of case.

Sh. Manzur Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Ch. Bashir Ahmad Shahzad, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 1:

Date of hearing : 30th January, 1980.

‑The point raised in this petition for leave to appeal is that the Rent Controller, on the question of title of respondent Muhammad Hassan, should not have acted on a photostat of ‑ the sale‑deed. The said respondent had asserted that he had purchased the disputed property from its previous owner Mst. Bashiran Bibi by a registered sale‑deed dated 12‑9‑1974, in proof of which he had produced a photostat of the same. The transaction had been denied not only by the petitioner who was a tenant but also by Mst. Bashiran Bibi (since deceased and represented by respondents 2 to 8) the previous owner who had got herself impleaded in the proceeding. No objection having been taken either before the Controller or the first appellate Court to the production of the copy, both the Tribunals had accep ted the transaction as proved and consequently had found the issue of relationship in favour of Muhammad Hassan respondent No. 1. In second appeal the High Court without adverting to the point, remanded the matter for other reasons. The point was, however, raised by way of review but the same was turned down by the impugned order dated 6‑4‑1931 as in the opinion of the learned Judge no objection having been taken by the petitioner to the admissibility of document in time and the question of the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant being one of fact which had been concur rently found against the petitioner, the plea was of no consequence.

2. It appears from the submissions made that Mst. Bashiran Bibi has already filed a suit challenging the transaction of sale which is said to be pending at appeal stage. In the circumstance, we are not inclined to interfere with the finding of the High Court at the instance of the petitioner who is only a tenant in respect of the property. The petition for grant of leave tot appeal is dismissed.

S. Q. Leave refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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