Find a Lawyer

Civil Revision Application No.116 of 1985, decided on 7th August, 1986.

---Ss.2(c)(i) & 13--Relationship of landlord and tenant--Concurrent finding of facts by two Courts below that applicants were trespassers and no relationship of landlord and tenant existed between parties- Courts below found to have properly appreciated evidence--Case neither one of misreading nor non-reading of evidence and no illegality found in impugned order--No exception, held, could be taken to the orders passed by two Courts below.

P L D 1968 Dacca 190 distinguished.

Abdul Sattar Khan for Applicants.

Abdul Hafeez Siddiqui for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 27th August, 1986.

The necessary facts for the disposal of this Revision Application are that Respondent/ plaintiff filed a suit for possession against the applicants. According to the respondent he was owner of plot in dispute where he was running a garage in it. The father of the applicants and after his death his sons were working in the said garage on daily wages. The respondent had allowed the father of the applicants and after his death they were allowed to keep instrument in a room of the garage in which electric meter is also fixed. The respondent had demolished the structure of the garage and the applicants filed Suit No.652/76 in the wrong name of Abdul Karim and obtained injunction in the absence of the plaintiff. Thereafter the applicants occupied the said room on 30-4-1976. The respondent filed the suit for the ejectment of the applicants from the disputed room. The respondent filed written statement in which it was pleaded that their father was tenant in respect of the said room and after his death the tenancy devolved upon them. It is their case that their father was running a shop in the name of Muhammad Radiator Works in the disputed room. After his death the applicant No.1 on his behalf and on behalf of the other applicants is carrying on business in the said shop. As the respondent was threatening to demolish the said room in April 1976 therefore the applicants filed a suit against the respondent which was decreed in their favour. The following issues were framed:

(1) Whether the defendants are tenants or trespassers

(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get possession

(3) Whether suit is maintainable under the law

(4) What should the decree be

The learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the applicants are trespassers and the respondent is entitled to recover, the possession. It was further held that the suit was maintainable in law. As such the suit was decreed. The applicants successfully challenged the judgment of the trial Court in Appeal. The appeal was dismissed by Additional District Judge, hence the present Revision Application.

2. Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that the applicants are tenant and therefore the proper course for the respondent was to file an application for ejectment under West Pakistan. Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance or Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 whichever is applicable. This contention has no force. There are concurrent findings of facts by the two Courts below that the applicants are trespassers and there does not exist relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.

Learned counsel for the applicants has referred to previous suit No.652/76. In that suit the applicants had alleged that they were tenants of the respondent. That suit was decreed ex parte and it is admitted by both the learned counsel that an application for setting aside the ex parte decree was moved by the respondent. The decree was set aside by consent of the parties and it was declared that the applicants would only be evicted in due course of law. After the disposal of the said suit the respondent filed the present suit (Suit No.816/76). Thus there is no finding of competent Court that there does exist relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Learned counsel has referred to some money orders sent by the applicants to the respondent but the respondent had not received. or accepted any rent through money order. It is stated by the learned counsel that the applicants' father was the tenant of the respondent for last 40 years but there is not an iota of evidence in support of such contention. No lease deed has been produced. No rent receipt has been filed. According to the applicants no receipt was issued by the respondent but there is no reliable evidence on this score. Mere statement of the applicants is not sufficient. The onus was upon the applicants and that onus has not been discharged. Learned counsel has stated that the applicants had examined Abdul Razak who -had supported the case of the applicants. This Abdul Razak is the employee of the applicants and his evidence has been discarded by the two Courts below. The respondent has stated that the applicants are trespassers. He has not admitted them to be his tenant. The two Courts have properly appreciated the evidence.

Learned counsel for the applicants has referred to P L D 1968 Dacca 190. In this case it has been observed that appellate Court misconstruing evidence and leaving out of consideration pertinent facts having great bearing on question of limitation. It was held that the Court acted illegally and with material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction.

This is not the position in the present case and therefore the above observations are not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the said authority it has been held that erroneous decisions of facts are not revisable but the exercise of the High Courts revisional jurisdiction is called for in cases where the decisions are based on no evidence or inadmissible evidence or are so perverse that grave injustice or hardship would result therefrom. None of the conditions apply in the present case. It is neither a case of misreading or non-reading of evidence. There is no illegality in the impugned order. As such no exception can be taken to the orders passed by the two Courts below.

The petition has no force. The same stands dismissed without any order as to costs.

S.Q./A.54-K 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.