Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.921P of 1983, decided on 30th January, 1984.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Peshawar High Court on 12‑2‑1983 in S. A . O . No.1 of 1983) .

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S.13‑‑Ejectment‑‑Relationship of landlord and tenant between parties and default in payment of rent by tenant established by con current findings of Courts below based on material brought on record‑ Leave to appeal refused.

Tariq Jamal Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.

Abdul Rahman Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with Qasim Imam Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.l.

Date of hearing: 30th January, 1984.

.‑‑ Respondents herein filed an application in the Court of the learned Rent Controller, Peshawar under section 13 of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 for the ejectment of the present petitioner on the ground that he was the owner of the suit house, purchased by him under a registered deed, dated 3‑5‑1973 and that the petitioner was his tenant @ Rs.100 per month in the half portion of the house in dispute and that the petitioner had committed default in the payment of rent and was, therefore liable to ejectment. The learned Rent Controller accepted the application and ordered the ejectment of the petitioner vide his order dated 7‑5‑1981. This order was challenged in appeal in the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Peshawar who dismissed the appeal vide judgment, dated' 3‑12‑1981. Petitioner then filed second appeal in the Peshawar High Court and the learned Chief Justice dismissed the same vide the impugned order dated 12‑2‑1983. By this petition leave is sought from this Court on the following grounds:

(i)That there existed no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, and, therefore, the learned Rent Controller had not jurisdiction to entertain the application for ejectment;

(ii) That there was no written Rent Deed and as such the respondent had failed to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant;

(iii) That the Courts below have not properly addressed themselves to issue No.l and decided the same in a cursory manner without taking into consideration the documentary as well as oral evidence produced by the petitioner establishing the non‑existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.

2.We have examined the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and find no substance in the arguments made before us. No doubt, the petitioner had claimed that he had inherited half of the suit house from Mst. Meraj Begum alongwith her other heirs on the basis of a dower deed but he failed to produce the dower deed in the Courts below; nor he produced any witness to support his claim to the half portion of the house. On the other hand, the respondent produced the registered sale‑deed and also produced the witnesses to show that the suit house was sold to him by the father of the petitioner. Therefore, on the basis of material brought before the Courts below we do not find any fault in their concurrent finding. Mst. Jan Sultan as A.W.2 stated before the learned Rent Controller that the house in dispute belonged to her husband Wazir Muhammad who had sold it to the respondent and thereafter 'she, alongwith the other members of her family, shifted to Haji Camp and thereafter shifted to the house in question and paid rent for two months.

3. Wazir Muhammad was the father of the petitioner so when the learned counsel was asked to explain as to why Mst. Jan Sultan had made statement adverse to the interest of her son the petitioner, all he could say was that there were some family differences between Mst. Jan Sultan and the wife of the petitioner. This does not find support from any material on the record. Leave refused and the petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

S . Q. 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.