Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 1251 of 1983, decided on 28th July, 1986.

(From the judgment/order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 11‑10‑1983 passed in Writ Petition No. 3683 of 1983).

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S. 13‑‑Ejectment‑‑Relationship of landlord and tenant‑‑New owners of rented property demanding rent from tenant after serving proper notice‑‑Tenant denying relationship of landlord and tenant on plea that they had been paying rent to son of previous owner‑‑With change of ownership of property, arrangement of agency between previous owner and his agent ended forthwith and new owners became entitled to receive rent from petitioner‑tenant‑‑Petitioner's plea of lack of relationship of landlord and tenant between parties being flimsy, held, was rightly rejected by two Courts below‑‑ Ejectment order maintained‑‑Leave to appeal refused.

‑‑‑O.XXVII, R. 1‑‑Contempt petition‑‑Supreme Court passing interim order staying ejectment of petitioner pending disposal of his petition for leave to appeal‑‑Execution of ejectment order taking place same day‑‑No affidavit produced to support version of petitioner that stay order was conveyed during process of execution‑‑Respondents' side sworn affidavit supported by a copy of Bailiff's report showing that execution had been completed much earlier than communication of stay order‑‑There being no certainty that stay order was conveyed during time of execution and that at that time it had not been complete‑‑Main petition having already been dismissed no useful purpose, held, would be served by proceeding any further in such matter‑‑Contempt petition dismissed.

Raja Muhammad Anwar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

M.A.Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 28th July, 1986.

These two matters C.P. No. 1251 of 1983 and Criminal Original No. 14 of 1983, arise out of the same case, therefore, they are being disposed of together.

Civil petition for leave to appeal is directed against judgment, dated 11‑10‑1983 of the Lahore High Curt whereby a Constitutional petition filed by the petitioner challenging his eviction as a tenant under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restrictions Ordinance, 1959, was dismissed.

The petitioner was sought to be evicted by the respondents 1 to 4 on grounds of default, damage to the property and personal requirement as also non‑payment of electricity charges. The petitioner's plea was that of denial thereof. He also declined to accept the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. This last plea was canvassed in the High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction. After careful analysis of the facts involved, a learned single Judge of the High Court came to the conclusion that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties, and accordingly dismissed the Constitutional petition. Leave to appeal has, therefore, now been sought.

The question of relationship of landlord and tenant has been resolved by the learned Courts below by elaborate examination of the facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioner's plea was that he was the tenant of Hakeem Muhammad Afzal whose father had sold the premises in dispute to the respondents and they had served a notice under section 13‑A of the Ordinance on the petitioner. The Courts have rightly held that the new owners had become entitled to recover rent from the petitioner and even if as alleged by him he had been paying rent to the agent of the previous owner, namely, his son there was no justification for him to claim that by virtue of this circumstance, said Muhammad Afzal was his landlord. As soon as the ownership changed the arrangement of agency between the previous owner and his agent ended forthwith and the new owners had become entitled to receive rent from the petitioner tenant. They had' made such a demand from the petitioner through a notice, the receipt of which has not been denied.

Looked at from whatever angle, the plea of lack of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties being flimsy had rightly been rejected by the learned two Courts below. There is no force in the civil petition for leave to appeal. Accordingly leave is refused.

The Criminal Original No. 14 of 1983 arises in the circumstances that this Court passed an interim order on filing of the afore disposed of civil petition for leave to appeal whereby the ejectment of the petitioner was stayed pending the disposal of the petitioner. This order was passed on 20th October, 1983 at 10‑15 a.m. On the same day the execution of the ejectment order had taken place at site. The information about the stay order passed by this Court was, according to the petitioner, conveyed to the bailiff and the respondents through one Imtiaz Hussain. He approached the learned executing Court which passed an order of recall of the warrant of possession on' the same day and sent its order through Imtiaz Hussain at the site where execution was taking place. According to the petitioner the execution through dispossession had not yet been completed when the order was conveyed to the concerned persons at the site where execution was taking place. No affidavit has been produced of Imtiaz Hussain to support the version of the petitioner that he had conveyed the order of the executing Court during the process of execution. On the contrary Noor Muhammad father of respondents Nos. 1 to 4 who are minors has sworn an affidavit supported by a copy of the Bailiff's Report showing that the execution had been completed much earlier than the alleged arrival of Imtiaz Hussain at the site.

That being so, there is no certainty that either the order oft this Court or that of the Executing Court was conveyed to the respondents in this criminal original petition, during the time of the execution and that at that time it had not been completed. We feel that no useful purpose would be served by proceeding any further in this matter. Criminal Original No: 14 of 1983 is also dismissed.

M . I . 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.