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.
Writ Petition No. 1382 of 1982, heard on 2nd May, 1984.
West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1958)--
----Ss. 13(2)(i)(3)(a)(i) & 13-A--Ejectment--Relationship of landlord and. tenant--Establishment of--Contention of tenant that house purchased by landlady was not same which was. in occupation of tenant but was different one--Findings of subordinate Courts based on unrebutted oral and documentary evidence on record that house in possession of tenant was same which landlady had purchased--Tenant failed to prove misreading of evidence or misconstruction of documents--Contention of tenant repelled--Relationship of landlord and tenant established in circumstances.
Ch. Sanaullah Bajwa for Petitioner.
A.R. Arshad for Respondent No. 1.
Nemo for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3.
Date of, hearing: 2nd May, 1984.
Mst. Wazeer Begum respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) filed an ejectment petition against the petitioner seeking his eviction from House No. 11, as described in detail in the ejectment petition, on the grounds of default in payment of rent and personal need etc. She claimed that she had, purchased the tenanted house from Mst. Zubaida Begum through a registered sale-deed and thereafter she served a notice under section 13-A of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, on the petitioner through registered, acknowledgement due, post. The petitioner, however, failed to pay any rent to her and thus the ejectment petition.
2. The petitioner resisted the eviction application and denied the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between tile parties. He mainly alleged that the hutlbe which the respondent purchased from Mst. Zubaida Begum was situated in Mohallah Killa Khazana while the house in his occupation was situated near the Power House, Shalamar Town, Lahore which is at a distance of one mile from Killa Khazatla.
3: The learned Rent Controller framed the necessary preliminary issue about the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
4. On the basis of oral as well as documentary evidence adduced before him by the parties, the learned Rent Controller, vide his judgment, dated 16-7-1981, found that the petitioner was tenant under the respondent. He (the petitioner) denied this relationship and admittedly never paid any rent to the respondent. Consequently, ejectment of the petitioner from the tenanted house was ordered.
5. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved, went in appeal before the learned Appellate Authority, viz. an Additional District Judge, Lahore, who too vide his judgment, dated 15-2-1 982 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ejectment order passed by the learned Rent Controller.
6. The aforementioned judgments passed by the learned Rent Controller and the learned Additional District Judge have been assailed through the present petition by invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court.
7. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that the house in respect of which the sale-deed has been executed by Mst. Zubaida Begum in favour of the respodeht is said to be situated in Killa Khazana while the house from which the ejectment of the petitioner has been sought is admittedly situated near the Power House, Shalamar Town, Lahore, which is at a distance of one mile from Killa Khazana. It hits thus been urged that the house which Mst, Wazeer Begum respondent purchased from Mst. Zubaida Begum was some different house and not the house in occupation of the petitioner.. It has, however, not been denied that the petitioner was in occupation of the house ire- question as tenant under Mst. Zubaida Begum. It has also been conceded that Mst. Zubaida Begum, earlier sought the ejectment of tile petitioner from this house through an ejectment petition, copy whereof is Exh. P.4. Ejectment orders of the petitioner were passed vide copy Exh. P.:'. The respondent has also produced exhibit P.1 and exhibit P.2 copies of registered sale-deed whereby she purchased the house front Mst. Zubaida Begum. The description of the house given in the sale-deeds, Exh. P.1 and Exh.P.2 corresponds with the otte given in the .ejectment petition culminating into the impugned orders and also with the description earlier given by Mst. Zubaida Begum in tier ejectment application filed against the petitioner. This house is admittedly numbered as 11 and it has been so described in the sale-deed as well as in the ejectment application. This house is mentioned to be situated in MoDhallah Iqbalpura, Abadi Power House, Hadbast Matlza Killa Khazana, in Exh.P.2. In the ejectment' petition also it i5 stated to be situated in Abadi Power House. Service of notice under section 13-A of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance is also not denied.
8. From the documentary evidence on the record, one comes to an irresistible conclusion that the finding recorded by the learned appellate authority and the learned Controller to the effect that the house in possession of .the petitioner was the same which the respondent has purchased from Mst. Zubaida Begum is not in any manner based on misreading of evidence or mis-construction of documents.
9. In this view of the matter, there is no substance in the petitioner's contention that the learned Rent Controller and the learned Appellate Authority have misconstrued the documents produced on the record. The present writ petition, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs. The petitioner, however, is allowed one month's time effective, from today for vacating the tenanted house.
H . B . T .
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer