Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No.879 of 1984, decided on 9th October, 1984.

(On appeal from the Judgment and Order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 6‑6‑1981 in Writ Petition No.2508 of 1984).

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S.13(3)(a)(ii)‑‑Ejectment‑‑Tenant disputing landlord's title/ existence of relationship of landlord and tenant‑‑Documents produced before Rent Controller sufficient to justify recording of finding of fact‑ Ejectment upheld in appeal‑‑No error in appraisement of evidence to justify interference by High Court in Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑Supreme Court refused leave to appeal‑‑Tenant at liberty to agitate question of title in Civil Court.

Allah Wasaya Malik, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri,

Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 9^th October, 1984.

The petitioner, a tenant, under orders of ejectment from a shop seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 6‑6‑1984 whereby his Constitutional petition challenging the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the District Judge, was dismissed.

The respondent held a P.T.O. for Plot No.10, situated at Khokha Bazar, Kallur Kot, District Mianwali, which had been subsequently permanently transferred to him, sought eviction of the petitioner claiming him to be his tenant. The petitioner contested the claim of the respondent to be his landlord, for his liability to pay the rent and denied the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant. The Rent Controller decided against the petitioner. The decision was upheld in appeal. The petitioner was unsuccessful on invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court.

The learned counsel for the petitioner conceded that the controversy, which he brought to the High Court in constitutional jurisdic tion, was one of fact, namely, the identity of the property and the existence of the relationship of the landlord and the tenant between the parties. The Controller had the jurisdiction to examine both these questions. The contention is that evidence has not been correctly read and the conclusions drawn are incorrect. His grievance is that the High Court has not gone deep into the matter and taken note of the deficiencies in the case of the respondents. It was necessary that the matter should have been examined more thoroughly because the very title was in dispute.

We find that the documents produced by the respondents before the Controller were sufficient to justify the recording of a finding of fact as was done by the Controller and the first appellate Court. It appears from the documents placed by the petitioner on record that the respondents had applied for Survey No.40, Khokha Bazar, Kallurkot. The name of the evacuee owner was Nersing Dass Kirpa Ram and that it was all covered and was being used as a shop in the year 1963. In the light of the documentary evidence and oral evidence the Controller held the respondents to be the transferee of the property and relationship of landlord and tenant established. In recording this finding of fact, appraisement of evidence had necessarily to be done and no such error appears as could justify the interference by the High Court, in constitutional jurisdiction or further examination of the question by this Court. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused. However, as the respondent has raised a question of title he is permitted, if so advised, to take the matter to the civil Court for adjudication of the rights in the property including the superstructure, if any.

M.I. 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.