Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 2119 of 1981, decided on 20th October, 1985.

‑‑‑S. 13‑‑Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art.9‑‑Ejectment‑ Question of title to property‑‑Determination‑‑Correct forum‑‑Tenants claimed that they were in occupation of property in dispute not as tenants but under agreement of sale entered into with two widows of landlord‑‑Question of title to property, held, should be determined by civil Court‑‑No interference was to be called for in Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court in circumstances.

Ishrat Hussain and another v. Subedar alias Suba 1975 S C M R 19 and Rehmatullah v. Ali Muhammad and another 1983 S C M R 1064 ref.

S. Laqa Haider Zaidi for Petitioner.

Ashiq Hussain Malik for Respondents Nos. 3 and 4.

Date of hearing: 20th October, 1985.

An ejectment application brought by the petitioners against respondents Nos. 3 and 4 was dismissed by Mr. Liaqat Ali, learned Rent Controller, Jhang on 8‑12‑1980 when he decided the issue of relationship of landlord and tenant against the landlord and left the question of title for determination by a Civil Court. This order was confirmed in appeal by Mr. Khizar Hayat Malik, learned Additional District Judge, Jhang, vide his order, dated 26‑3‑1981. The landlord has challenged the orders of the Courts below on ground of misreading of evidence.

2. A plot was transferred to Sharfud Din, father of petitioners Nos.l to 8 and husband of petitioner No.9. Construction was subsequently raised on the plot but this is a moot point whether construction was raised by the petitioners or by the respondents. The respondent claimed to have purchased the plot from two widows of Sharfud Din, Mst. Hafeezan and Mst. Sardari Begum, now petitioner No.9. They claimed that they had occupied the plot in pursuance of an agreement of sale pending the finalisation of the sale agreement which had become, contingent on the permission to be granted by the Guardian Judge as some of the heirs of late Sharfud Din were still minors.

3. A question regarding the identity of the plot was raised before the Rent Controller as the documents for transfer of the property in favour of Sharfud Din gave the property number different from the one given by the Excise and Taxation Department. The former carried No.353‑A while the latter carried No.399. The Rent Controller was, however, convinced that the two numbers relate to the same property and the parties were not in doubt regarding the identity. The learned Additional District Judge has not agreed with this finding but I am inclined to agree with the learned Rent Controller who found the error to be of no consequence. ‑This finds support from the case of Ishrat Hussain and another v. Subedar alias Suba 1975 S C M R 19. The learned Rent Controller, however, found that the construction was raised by the respondent. The learned Additional District Judge found that the documents from the Excise and Taxation Department mentioned Lal Din to be an occupant and not a tenant. Since these propositions relate to the claim of the respondents that they were in occupation of the property not as tenants but under the agreement of sale entered by the respondents with the two widows of Sharfud Din. The two A Courts below found that it was proper that the question of title be determined by a civil Court. This the proper determination of the question in issue and no interference is called for in the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. In fact this finds support from a later judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rehmatullah v. Ali Muhammad and another 1983 S C M R 1064. The writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.

H . B . T . Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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