Find a Lawyer

First Rent Appeal No.352 of 1983, decided on 8th March, 1987.

---Ss.15 & 21--Relationship of landlord and tent determination of question--Rent Controller has jurisdiction to determine question of relationship between landlord and tenant except in very exceptional cases where too many complicated questions of fact and law were raised by parties when Rent Controller, would direct parties to move civil Court for determination of such relationship--Every case would depend upon its own facts and circumstances whether Rent Controller should determine relationship of landlord and tenant.

---Ss.15 & 21--Default in payment of rent--Tenant denying relationship of landlord and tenant--Relationship of landlord and tenant proved by documentary and oral evidence and finding of Rent Controller that landlord was owner of shop in dispute was justified--Tenant ejected in circumstances.

Khalilur Rehman for Appellant.

Siraj Ahmed Khan for Respondent.

Dates of hearing: 22nd February and 9th March, 1987.

The appellant has felt aggrieved against the order of ejectment passed against him by the Rent Controller on 23-2-1983.

The ejectment application had been moved by the respondent in 1976 on the ground of default in payment of rent and the rent was claimed at the rate of Rs.50 per month. The appellant contested the said application and denied the allegations. He even denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Therefore, the preliminary issue in respect of relationship of landlord and tenant was framed and the parties led their evidence. The respondent examined him self and asserted that he had got the disputed shop constructed and he had rented it out to the appellant at the rate of Rs.50 per month and produced the writings of the appellant as Ex. A-1 and A-2. The writing Ex.A-2 was attested by Lal Shah. The respondent asserted that he had issued a notice demanding rent from the appellant on 14-7-1976 and produced a copy of the notice. He also produced the registered acknowledgement due receipt of the said notice which was alleged to have been signed by the appellant.

The attesting witness Lal Shah supported the statement of the respondent and stated that the appellant had signed Ex. A-2 and tae also signed the same. He asserted that the appellant was tenant of the respondent. There was no serious cross-examination in respect of the said witness. One Khasa Muhammad stated that the appellant was doing business in the shop of the respondent and that he had constructed the disputed shop at his own expenses. He denied that he was relation of the respondent. On the other hand, appellant Abdul Ghani claimed in his evidence that he had constructed the shop himself and got his name entered as owner in the Excise and Taxation Department. He denied that he had executed Exh. A-1 and A-2 and the same were forged. He also denied to have paid the rent to respondent. He also denied his signature on A-D Ex. A-4: He admitted that adjacent to the disputed shop there was another shop of the respondent. The appellant examined in his support Shakir Khan, who stated. that the disputed shop belonged to the appellant but in his cross-examination Shakir Khan admitted that there was a dispute between his parents and the respondent. One Muhammad Nazir stated that the opponent, present appellant, raised construction on the disputed shop but this witness admitted that his real brother was betrothed with the daughter of the appellant. The Rent Controller compared the signature of appellant Abdul Ghani, on Ex. A-1 and Ex. A-2 with his signature on Ex. A-4 and came to the conclusion that Ex. A-4 was signed by the appellant. He believed the witness of the respondent whom he found independent witness and he disbelieved the witnesses of the appellant whom he found to be either prejudiced witnesses against the respondent or related to the appellant.

The view of the Rent Controller does not seem to be wrong and, therefore, he rightly came to the conclusion that relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. This decision was reached by him on 15-4-1979. The appellant filed a Suit No.2290/79 against the respondent challenging the order, dated 5-4-1979 but it was dismissed for non-prosecution. However the appellant had not filed any regular suit in respect of his title. Therefore, what should have really happened on 15-4-1979, when the relationship of landlord and tenant was found to be established and it was also clear that the appellant had not paid any rent, therefore, he should have been directed to be ejected but the Rent Controller proceeded to further determine the question of default in payment of rent and the same was also determined against the appellant and was found to be a default. '

The appellant's counsel has not been able to contend anything against the ejectment order of 23-3-1987 whereby the ejectment is ordered because admittedly the appellant had not paid any rent to the respondent. It is, therefore, basically the judgment, dated 5-4-1979 against which the appellant is aggrieved. Mr. Khalilur Rehman had contended that the Rent Controller should have refrained from comments about the relationship of landlord and tenant, rather parties should have been directed to go to Civil Court. I do not find any justification in this submission because the Rent Controller has the jurisdiction to determine the question of relationship between the landlord and tenant and it is only in very exceptional cases where too many complicated questions of fact and law are raised by the parties, and number of questions are required to be considered and good number of documents were to be interpreted then it can be urged that in such cases the Rent Controller should have directed the parties to move the Civil Court for determination of relationship between landlord and tenant. It is not technically correct that as soon as relationship is denied the Rent Controller is deprived of jurisdiction. Every case would depend upon its own facts and circumstances whether the Rent Controller should determine the relationship of landlord and tenant.

Mr. Khalilur Rehman had referred to judgment of Mr. Justice Ibadat Yar Khan, reported in 1987 C L C 148 where in the circumstances of that case he had taken the view that question of relationship of landlord and tenant should have been left by the Rent Controller to be determined by the Civil Court. However, as stated above, every case depends on its own facts and the learned counsel has not been able to show any positive law that Rent Controller should not determine the relationship between the landlord and tenant as soon as the', tenant raised the question that he is not a tenant in the premises or that applicant is not owner of the premises. In the present case before me there was sufficient justification for the Rent Controller to determine the relationship between the landlord and tenant. There were two agreements on record, moreover, an independent witness Lal Shah has supported the respondent. On the other hand the witnesses produced by the appellant were not found to be credible. In fact but I have seen that D.W. Nazir Ahmed has not really supported the case of the appellant that he had constructed the shop, inasmuch as Nazir Ahmed has stated in his affidavit that the appellant had paid Rs.2,200 to the respondent for obtaining the shop from him as sale consideration. Therefore, the contention of the respondent that he was the owner of the shop has evidently been supported even by the witnesses of the appellant. The circumstances of this case amply justify the view taken by the Rent Controller.

Moreover, I have compared the signature of Abdul Ghani, appearing on Ex. A-1 with the signature of Abdul Ghani appearing in the memo of present appeal as well as the signature of Abdul Ghani on the affidavit, dated 25-2-1986 filed in this appeal along with the application U/O. 41 R.19 C.P.C. and to me the 3 signatures appear to be of the same person. Even the signature on Ex.A-4 which is the acknowledgement due receipt of notice appears to be of the same Abdul Ghani, who had signed the present appeal. The signatures are, however, in a crude form.

I am, therefore, of the view that the present appeal is not substantiated and, therefore, I, dismiss the same.

Mr. Khalilur Rehman advocate requests for one year's time to vacate the premises of the respondent. Abdul Ghani stated that he is suffering from T.B. I must say that Mr. Siraj Ahmed, counsel for the respondent and Abdullah Jan respondent, himself, have been graceful in consenting to this request, subject to regular payment of rent.

Consequently I direct writ of possession without any notice against the appellant will be issued after one year from today, in case he continues to deposit rent in Court, otherwise the writ of possession will be issued earlier. The rent deposited by the appellant is allowed to be withdrawn by the respondent Abdullah Jan.

M.Y.H./A-49/K Appeal 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.