Find a Lawyer

First Rent Appeal No. 161 of 1980, decided on 1st November, 1984.

---Ss. 14 & 21--Ejectment--Default and subletting--Relationship of landlord and tenant denied by tenant (respondents)--Dispute, about identity of plot--Area in which plot was situated not surveyed area and no survey member had been assigned to plot by Revenue Authorities---Held, was necessary for landlord to have produced reliable and independent evidence to define identity of Property--Mere -statement of landlord was not sufficient to establish fact of identification.

-Ss. 14 & 21--Ejectment-Identtiiy ofproperty--Respondents in occupation of 10,000 sq. yds. While appellant claimed 1,200 sq. yds.--- Doubt created as to identity- of disputed property---Dispute between parties about ownership of land---Landlord should have first cleared his title through Civil Court and then instituted proceedings for ejectment in circumstances.

1983 S C M R 1064 ref.

Khalilur Rahman for Appellants.

Qazi Khalid for Respondent No. 1

Nemo for Respondents Nos. 2 to 4.

Date of hearing: 1^st November, 1984.

The appellant's predecessor-in-interest Muhammad Ibrahim Brohi riled an application for ejectment against respondent No. 1 and one Khan. During the pendency of the case Muhammad Ibrahim Brohi died and his legal heirs were brought on record who are the appellants. Z.A. Khan also died during pendency of the proceedings and his legal heirs were brought on record who are respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in this appeal. The ejectment application was filed by Muhammad Ibrahim Brohi is respect of open tans measuring 1,200 sq. yarda which was alleged to have beers rented out in the year 1961 to respondent No.l under an agreement, dated 1-11-1961. This plot of land is situated in Sher Shah village. It was alleged that respondent No.l has not paid the rent and that it has been sublet unauthorisedly to Z.A. Khan. The respondent No.1 in his written statement pleaded that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was also pleaded that the application is vague and the demised premises has not been defined. It was stated that respondent No.l was the tenant of the appellant in respect of a plot but he had surrendered the possession that plot to the appellant. He further pleaded that the plot in his possession is not the plot which was let out by the appellant brat it is a different Plot. The respondents Nos. 2 to 4 also submittedtheir written statement and stated that they had never occupied the plot through respondent No.1 or heirs of Adam Khan nor they are sub-tenant of any one of them. It was pleaded that Z.A, Khan had been in Possession of the blot for the last 1.5 years and had raised construction on it. It was further pleaded that in Suit No. 1955 of 1971 filed by Brohi, Z.A. Khan was termed as transpaser. The learned counsel framed preliminary issue relating to relationship of the parties and after recording the evidence held that relationship of landlord and tenant does not exist and the application was dismissed.

The main dispute seems to be about the identity of the plot.. Admittedly the area in which the disputed plot exists is not a surveyed are and, therefore, no survey number .has been assigned to the plot. It is not the case of the petitioner before us that in response to the notice the petitioner made any representation or any one appeared on its behalf before respondent No. 1. Therefore, the demand became final and subsequently by nine letters, dated 27-7-1977, 3-11-1977, 19-11-1977, 27-11-1977, 18-1-1978, 2-2-1978, 19-2-1978, 21-9-1978, 18-4-1978 and finally by the letter, dated 17-5-1978, the petitioner was required to make good the demand of Rs.9,800.10 within 15 days. But the petitioner did not make good the demand and, therefore, the Customs Authorities sought to enforce the demand through coercive method. The Assistant Commissioner (South), Karachi, by the notice, dated 21-12-1978, required the petitioner to pay the dues. It is after the service of this notice that on 20-1-1979, the petitioner has filed this petition.

4. We have heard Mr. Faizuddin learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Hamid Hussain learned counsel for respondent No.l.

5. It is fairly conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had remedy by way of appeal available to it. If i: was aggrieved by the demand besides having the opportunity to make representation against the notice of demand, it should have filed an appeal. But it did not avail of these remedies. We are, therefore, of the view that this is not a case in which we could interfere. Further, A this petition suffers from laches because the demand was made by the notice, dated 11-5-1977 and the petitioner did not take any step whatever until 20-1-1979, when this petition was filed. We accordingly, dismiss this petition but make no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case.

H. B. T.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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