Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 1165 of 1983, decided on 25th Oct‑bar 1983.

(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, dated 9th July, 1983, passed in W. P. No. 382 of 1983).

‑ Art. 185(3)‑West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S. 13‑Ejectment for default in payment of rent and per sonal need of landlord‑Tenant denying relationship of landlord and tenant between parties‑Question of facts already heard and decided by Courts below in proceedings under West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 and by High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction‑Case not fit for Supreme Court to go into question of fact already considered by three Courts‑‑Leave to appeal refused with observation that question of title in respect of property in dispute was open to be moved before civil Court.

Sh. Hamid Mukhtar, Advocate Supreme Court with Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 25th October. 1983.

This petition by Fazal Din etc. is directed against. the order of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court (MuItan Bench), dated 9‑7‑1983, dismissing their writ petition in a rent matter.

2. Facts of the case, briefly, are that the respondents filed an applica tion under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1.959, against the petitioners praying for their ejectment from Khasra Nos. 1207/1561, 1277/2 and, 871 which, according to them (respondents) the petitioners had taken on lease from them. The grounds on which the respondents based their application were default in payment of rent and personal need of respondent No. 4. The petitioners, however, denied relationship of landlord and tenant between them and the respondents, stat ing that they had purchased Khasra No. 871 from the respondent, that Khasra Nos. 1207/1561 and 1277/2, were not in their possession. Instead, they stated that they were, in fact, in possession of Khasra Nos. 1256/1265, 1260/1165, 315/9 and 154, which they had purchased from some other persons. The allegations of default and the personal need were also denied.

2. The learned Rent Controller framed only one preliminary issue on the question of relationship of landlord and tenant and decided it in favour of the petitioners' as a result of which he dismissed the ejectment applica tion. The respondents went up in appeal before the Additional District Judge who remanded the case for ascertaining the question of possession of the parties in respect of the disputed plots of land. On remand the learned Rent Controller appointed a Local Commission who after inspecting the site in question submitted its report. The learned Rent Controller passed an order dismissing the ejectment application on 12‑4‑1981. After considering the report of the Commission and hearing arguments of the parties.

The respondents then went in appeal again before the learned Additional District Judge who accepted the same vide a lengthy order dated 7‑2‑1983, Feeling aggrieved the petitioners filed a writ petition but the High Court after considering their contentions at length, dismissed it by a detailed judgment.

3. The petitioners still not satisfied and now want this Court to go into the question of facts already heard and decided by the Courts below is proceedings under the Rent Restriction Ordinance and by the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction.

4. After hearing the learned counsel at considerable length we do not think it a fit case for this Court to go into the question of fact already considered by the three Courts. Leave is, therefore, refused.

5. If, however, the question of respondents' title in respect of the land in dispute is involved the petitioners, it is open to them to move the civil Court for that purpose.

M. Z. M. 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.