Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 555 of 1982, decided on 19th June, 1982.
(On appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 24‑2‑1982 in W. P. No. 2558 of 1981).
‑‑ Ss. 13 & 15‑Ejectment on ground of default in payment of rent Relationship of landlord and tenant contested‑Concurrent findings of Courts that possession of property was not adverse but as a tenant Registration deed showing that entire property in dispute had come in 'hands of landlord‑Held: Rent Controller, as an authority of limited and exclusive jurisdiction ; not empowered to go behind such deed to question its validity and legal effect‑‑Petitioner neither entering witness box nor producing any witness to support his claim or to rebut claim of landlord or to stand test of cross‑examination‑Petition for. leave to appeal dismissed as being without merit‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973 Art. 185(3).
Maulvi Ehsanul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate for Respondent No. 1.
Nemo for Respondent No. 2.
The petitioner an occupant of a shop located in Khasras Nos. 151 and 152 Khewat and Khitoni No. 73 and bearing No 1‑S‑10 Block‑4, Sargodha, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 24‑2‑1982 whereby his constitutional petition challenging an order of ejectment passed against him under the Rent Restriction Ordinance, was dismissed.
Abdul Hamid, the respondent, claimed to have purchased the property in which this shop was located by two registered deeds. One half share he claimed to have purchased from Zeenat Begum by a registered deed dated 10‑6‑1977. The other half share he claimed to have purchased from Muhammad Islam by a registered deed dated 1‑11‑1977. He claimed to have given a notice of the purchase to the petitioner, the occupant of the shop on 10‑6‑1979 by registered post. The petitioner did not respond by paying the rent of the property to him whereupon Abdul Hameed instituted proceedings for his eviction under the Rent Restriction Ordinance before the Rent Controller. The contest centered round the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The petitioner submitted a reply to the petition and tendered certain judgment in evidence but did not appear as his own witness nor produced any other witness in support of his claim. The Controller on the basis of earlier litigation between the petitioner and the predecessor‑in‑interest of Abdul Hamid held that the petitioner was the tenant to Abdul Hamid and hence liable to pay the rent and on account of the repudiation of the interest of the landlord he was liable to be ejected. An order of his ejectment was passed.
On appeal the order was maintained. Left with no remedy in the hierarchy the petitioner instituted a constitutional petition challenging the decision. His main grievance was that the respondent, Abdul Hamid, had failed to prove his title in the ‑property and in the absence of proper proof he was not liable to be treated as a tenant and dealt with as such. The learned Judge in the High Court rejected the contention and refused to interfere in the constitutional jurisdiction with the order.
The learned counsel for the petitioner contended before us that title of the respondent was not proved in accordance with law and in the absence of proper proof the petitioner was hot liable to eviction from the property. His main contention was that the property belonged to a number of persons, about eleven, and not all, according to the respondent's own showing, had transferred their proprietary interest in his favour and unless he enjoyed full and complete proprietary interest in the property, he could not in the absence of other co‑sharer, get the petitioner evicted from the property.
The learned Judge in the High Court has noted the previous protracted litigation between the petitioner and the predecessor‑in‑interest of Abdul Hamid, the respondent, and has determined the effect of it. The petitioner a claimed to be a trespasser in adverse possession of the property. That matter came to this Court at the instance of the petitioner in C. P. S. L. A.I No. 411 of 1979 (Bashir Ahmed v. Malik Abdul Ali Khan and others). The concurrent finding of the appellate Court that the possession of the property by the petitioner at its inception was not adverse but was as a tenant was upheld. In view of the registered deed showing that the entire property had come in the hands of Abdul Hamid, the respondent the Rent Controller a an authority of limited and exclusive jurisdiction had no power, in fact, to go behind the registered deeds, to question their validity and legal effect. The petitioner had not entered the witness‑box or produced any other witness in support of his claim or to rebut the claim of the respondent or to stand the test of cross‑examination. This was taken to be adversely reflecting on the case set up by him. We find that there is no merit in the petition and the leave to appeal is refused.
Appeal refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer