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 Appeal No.57 of 1984, decided on 24th March, 1984.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 1st February, 1983 in W.P. No.4114 of 1982).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Nest Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S.13‑‑Ejectment‑‑Landlord and tenant‑‑Relationship of‑‑Documents produced in evidence that appellant himself admitted respondent as his landlord in respect of demised premises‑‑Held, appellant cannot be permitted to deny respondent's title to property.
Kalimullah v. Amin Hazin and others 1976 S C M R 77 ref.
Rana Muhammad Sarwar, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant.
Sh.Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 24th March, 1984.
.‑‑ This is an appeal from the judgment of Lahore High Court dismissing a constitutional petition filed by the appellant by which he sought to challenge the order of eviction passed against him by the Rent Controller which was upheld on appeal by the Additional District Judge, Lahore. The proceedings were initiated on an ejectment application filed by the first respondent against appellant on the ground that he was defaulter in payment of rent. In defence, appellant, inter alia, pleaded that the demised premises belonged to the Custodian of Enemy Evacuee Property and there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, and in fact the Rent Controller did not even have jurisdiction to deal with the case.
After recording evidence of the parties the Rent Controller held that since in the earlier suit filed by appellant against the respondent he had himself admitted that the respondent was the landlord of the demised premises and this position was also proved in evidence from other documents, it did not lie in the mouth of the appellant to plead that the respondent was not his landlord in respect of the demised premises.
Appellant's challenge to this order in appeal failed as the Additional District Judge also agreed with the view of the Rent Controller in these words:‑
"So far the merits of the case are concerned, the evidence of the petitioner (the respondent herein) stands unrebutted. He produced oral as well as documentary evidence and he produced a copy of a document containing admissions of the present appellant in which he had admitted the relationship of landlord between him and the petitioner, therefore, the oral as well as the documentary evidence of the petitioner having not been rebutted by the present appellant, the Rent Controller was justified in giving the findings in favour of the petitioner."
The appellant the challenged these orders in a constitutional petition before the Lahore High Court but it was also dismissed.
Leave to appeal was granted to examine the aforesaid legal pleas advanced by the appellant but after having gone through the record. we find that no exception can be taken against the judgment of the High Court, for it stands proved from the documents produced in evidence that appellant had himself admitted the respondent as his landlord in respect of the demised premises, and he, therefore, cannot she permitted to deny his title to the property. This position has already been clarified by this Court in Kalimullah v. Amin Hazin and others 1976 S C M R 77.
For these reasons, the appeal fails and is dismissed, with no order as to costs.
S . Q . Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer