Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 881 of 1981, decided on 5th June, 1985.

(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 13‑6‑1981, passed in S.A. O. No. 230 of 1975).

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S.15‑‑Second appeal‑‑Concurrent findings of fact‑‑Leave granted to consider contention that question of title of property which had been concluded by concurrent finding of fact by first two forums, ought not to have been disturbed by High Court in Second Appeal, and finding recorded by High Court was bound to affect case of petitioner whose form for transfer of property in his favour was still pending.

Ch. Khurshid Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Tanveer Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Ch. Ghulam Sarwar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Walayat Umar Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 5th June, 1985.

Respondent Master Sardar Elahi claiming to be transferee of the property in question by auction and to have duly served notice of transfer on the petitioner, instituted gin ejectment proceeding against the petitioner which was dismissed by the Rent Controller upon the finding that the disputed property had not been transferred to him and that the petitioner having come into possession of the property after the date of the transfer, there was no statutory tenancy between him and the respondent. The findings were upheld in first appeal but in second appeal a learned Single Judge of the High Court held in pars. 5 of his Judgment that the property in question had been transferred to the respondent. However, as the petitioner was found to have come into possession of the property in 1961‑62 and there being no agreement of tenancy between the parties, the High Court agreed that there was no relationship, statutory or contractual, of landlord and tenant between the parties and that the ejectment application was not maintainable and had been rightly dismissed.

2. Although the respondent's application had thus ultimately failed but the petitioner's grievance is that the question of title to the property which had been concluded by a concurrent finding of fact by the first two forums, ought not to have been disturbed by the High Court in second appeal and that the finding recorded by the High Court is bound to affect the case of the petitioner whose form for transfer of the property in his favour was still pending.

3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we grant leave to appeal. Security Rs.1,000, The appeal shall be heard in the week commencing on 22‑6‑1985 on the present record with permission to file fresh documents if any.

M. I. Leave granted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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