Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 86/R of 1986, decided on 28th June, 1986.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 13‑4‑1986 in W.P. No. 3796 of 1985).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) , Ss. 13 & 15‑‑Question of title‑‑Determination by Rent Controller‑‑ High Court holding that decision of Additional District Judge to decide question of title himself rather to leave it to a civil Court was not bad for want of authority‑‑Findings of Courts below affirmed by Supreme Court with observation that tenant after surrendering possession to landlord might, if advised, establish his title over disputed property from civil Court‑‑Petition for leave to appeal having no merits dismissed.
Rehmatullah v. Ali Muhammad and another 1983 S C M R 1064 ref.
K.M.A. Samdani and M. Salim Sahgal, Advocates Supreme Court with Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for the Petitioner.
M. Kowkab Iqbal, Advocate‑on‑Record for the Respondents.
Date of hearing: 28th June, 1986.
Following questions have been raised in this petition for determination.
Whether the learned Judge in Chamber has not erred in law by not following the principle enunciated by this Court in Rehmatullah's ease which tentamount to refusal to exercise jurisdiction; whether in the context of the dispute relating to determination of title, the matter did not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Civil Courts; whether the learned Additional District Judge has not acted illegally by violating the established principle of law of evidence while shifting the onus of proof of the issue regarding relationship of landlord and tenant and thereby reversing the unexceptionable finding by the learned Rent Controller and lastly whether the documentary as well as oral evidence produced by the petitioner was not sufficient to create a reasonable doubt on the title of the respondents Nos. 1 to 7 as landlords /owners of the shop in dispute.
2. Facts stated in the petition are as follows:‑
The dispute relates to the property bearing Shop No.P‑224 situated in Rail Bazar, Toba Tek Singh. The petitioner is in possession of the said shop as a tenant. According to him, he obtained the possession of the shop for a valuable consideration on the basis of an agreement to sell from its real and original owner (now dead) namely Jan Muhammad son of Khair Din, a different person from the one who is being claimed by respondents Nos. 3 to 7 as their predecessor. The respondents who claim to be the heirs of Jan Muhammad son of Khair Din, filed an ejectment application in the Court of the Rent Controller, who vide his judgment, dated 2‑2‑1985 dismissed the same. Respondent Nos. 3 to 7 then filed an appeal against the aforesaid order of the Rent Controller and the appeal was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge per order, dated 27‑7‑1985. Thereafter, the petitioner challenged this order before the High Court through Writ Petition No. 3796/1985 resulting in the impugned judgment. In the impugned judgment it is held that the shop in question being evacuee property, was transferred to Jan Muhammad son of Khair Din. P.T.0 was issued in his favour on 10‑3‑1960 while Permanent Transfer Deed was issued subsequently in the year 1971. Jan Muhammad died in the year 1977 and mutation was sanctioned on 30‑5‑1981 and the shop in question was transferred to his legal heirs namely respondents Nos. 3 to 7. On the strength of the Permanent Transfer Deed and the mutation, respondents Nos. 3 to 7 applied for ejectment of the petitioner claiming that the petitioner was their tenant through Muhammad Iqbal his son to whom the property was initially rented out @ Rs.200 per month and the learned High Court Judge in paragraph 4 of the impugned judgment observed as under:‑
"As regards the question of the status of landlord and tenant between the parties, evidence was led to show that the property was rented out to Muhammad Iqbal at the rate of Rs.200 per month. Subsequently Muhammad Iqbal delivered possession of this property to his father Umar Din who, in the meantime, had sold his own shop which was adjacent to the present shop.
There was a joint connection of electricity etc. in the two shops. After the sale of the shop belonging to Umar Din a new connection had to be applied for thus explaining the existence of the name of the petitioner in the different connections of the utilities obtained from the local authorities."
As regards the question of title i.e. whether it could be determined by the Rent Controller himself or not, the learned High Court Judge referred to this Courts judgment in Rehamtullah v. Ali Muhammad and another 1983 S C M R 1064 concluding that the decision of the learned Additional District Judge to decide the question of title himself rather to leave it to a civil Court is, therefore, not bad for want of authority.
We have examined the contentions raised by the learned counsel. We agree with the findings of the two Courts below and we are of the view that this petition has no merit and the same is, consequently, dismissed. However, the petitioner if advised may, after surrendering the possession to the respondents, establish his title over the disputed property, from the civil Court.
M. Y. H. Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer