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 NO. 1185 of 1980, decided on 4th November, 1984.
(Against the judgment and order, dated 20‑5‑1980 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Second Appeal from Order No. 560 of 1977).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S.15‑‑Rent appeal‑‑Concurrent and elaborate finding on question of relationship of landlord and tenant between parties with reference to identity of suit property‑‑Conclusion suffering from no legal infirmity‑ Petitioner having several opportunities at all stages to prove his case, plea of lack of adequate opportunity for prosecuting his case not sustained‑‑Petition being devoid of merits, dismissed.
Ch. A. Waheed Salim, Advocate Supreme Court in5tructed.by Hamid Aslam Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
M. Z. Khalid, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondents Nos. l and 2
Date of hearing: 4th November, 1984.
The petitioner under orders of ejectment concurrently upheld by all the three .authorities seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court; ,dated. 20th of May, 1980 whereby his second appeal was dismissed:
Mirza Aziz Ahmad the predecessor‑in‑interest of respondents 1 and 2 purchased at an auction on 26‑7‑1960 residential portion and two quarters of property bearing No. 195/B‑VII, Railway Road, Sahiwal. He sold it to respondents 1 and 2 who then served a notice on the petitioner calling upon him to pay a rent of Rs.250 as he was in occupation of it. He afterwards filed a petition for his ejectment before the Rent Controller. The contest centred round the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant by reference to the identity of the property transferred. The petitioner being the transferee of the adjoining Graduate Hotel was claiming the residential portion as part of his property i.e. the hotel while the transferee was claiming it as his portion. It was, therefore, held that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed in respect of the property in dispute and that there had been subletting and an ejectment order was passed against the petitioner. An appeal was filed in which again the same grounds were examined and the order of ejectment was upheld.
In this background of litigation a second appeal was filed in the High Court and grievance was made of certain procedural steps taken up by the District Judge and opportunity not allowed to cross‑examine the witnesses. The finding of fact with regard to the identity of the property transferred was also disputed. The learned Judge came to the conclusion that the petitioner had an adequate opportunity of prosecuting his case and the finding of fact recorded by the two authorities was found to stiffer from no legal or jurisdictional defect.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the same points with regard to the identity of the property and the lack of adequate opportunity for prosecuting his case.
We find that in unusually elaborate orders the Rent Controller and the first appellate Court have dealt with the question of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties by reference to the identity of the property transferred to each. The conclusion appears to suffer from no such infirmity as may justify further examination of the same question. It appears otherwise also that the inquiry has been rather elaborate. The petitioner, we find, had several opportunities at all stages to prove his case and if there has been failure on his part to do the needful that cannot be made a ground for leave to appeal.
We find no merit in the petition and leave to appeal is refused.
M.I.
Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer