Find a Lawyer

First Rent Appeal No.836 of 1984, decided on 24th August, 1987.

---Ss.2(f)(j), 15 & 21--Relationship of landlord and tenant--Proof- Tenancy to be established either by agreement or by operation of law--Mere title of ownership in respect of premises in dispute, held, would not necessarily establish relationship of landlord and tenant between claimant and occupant of that premises--In absence of any tenancy agreement between parties, mere word of appellant possessing title, documents of premises in dispute that he had .let out premises in the same dispute to respondent was not sufficient--Rent Controller had rightly concluded that no relationship of landlord and tenant existed between parties in circumstances.

P L D 1984 Kar.63; P L D 1985 S C 1; P L D 1979 Kar.59; 1987. G L C li34; 1984 S C M . R 925; 1983 S C M R 104 and P L D 1985 S.

M.Rafiq Khanzada for Appellant

Mumtaz Hussain Shah for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 24th August, 1987.

Appellant Shafique Ahmed filed Rent Case No.396 of 1979, on 20-1-1979, for ejectment of the respondent Abdul Rehman from rented house constructed on premises No.616/318, Fatima Jinnah Colony, Jamshed Road, Karachi, on the ground that he had not paid rent from inspection of tenancy orally established in the year 1976. The Rent Case was resisted by the respondent, contending that, he and his sister being step brother and sister respectively to the appellant, were in occupation of the premises in their own right. They denied that there was any relationship of landlord tenant between them. The parties filed their own affidavits in evidence. The respondent also filed affidavit of one witness Allaudin. The learned Controller held, by impugned order dated 5-8-1984, that there did not exist relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and dismissed the Rent Case with no order as to costs.

The learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the appellant established his title over the property by producing in evidence P.T.I. P.T.O. and P T D and stated in his affidavit that he had let out to the respondent the premises in his occupation in the year 1976 and the respondent did not pay rent' therefore at all.

According to the learned counsel, the aforesaid documents furnished evidence of ownership of the appellant over the premises' and the occupation of the respondent is therefore deemed to be in the capacity of the tenant. He has therefore advanced the arguments that the respondent having failed to pay rent was liable to be ejected. In his opinion, the learned Controller was wrong that there did not exist relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. He has relied upon certain cases cited as P L D 1984 ..Karachi 63; P L D 1985 S C 1 and P L D 1979 Karachi 39.

On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent has contended that mere filing of the title document, is not' sufficient evidence of relationship of landlord and tenant. 'He has further contended that mere word of the appellant that premises was let, out to the respondent is not sufficient to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant. According to him, the respondent and his sister were members of the same family and. they had occupied the piece of land themselves and the property transferred to the appellant did not cover the premises in occupation of the respondent according to him, the impugned order is based on appropriate evaluation of facts and evidence placed on record. He has relied upon cases reported 'in 1987 C L C 1134, 1984 S C M .R 925, 1983 S C M R 104 and P L D 1985 S.C.1.

The appellant did place on record photostat ,copies of P.T.I. P.T.O. and P T D in support of his title on the premises No.676/318 Fatima Jinnah Colony, Jamshed Road, Karachi. The respondent is in occupation of a portion of that plot. He has not filed any document, in support of his claim over that portion of the land. However, mere title of ownership does not necessarily establish relationship of landlord and. tenant between the claimant and the occupant of the, premises. Tenancy is established either by agreement or by operation of law. I, The property was disposed of under evacuee laws as evacuee property. It is not the appellant's case that the respondent had become tenant by the operation of law. His contention is that tenancy was established by oral agreement. It is also his case that no rent was paid to him, by the respondent. The respondent has denied creation of tenancy. The parties are closely related to each other. In the circumstances, mere word of the appellant that he had let out the premises to the respondent is not sufficient. The cases relied upon by the learned counsel relate to be dispute over the ownership and consequent determination of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. They do not lay down that mere production of title deeds establish tenancy. The evidence of title is in favour of the appellant but there was no evidence of any tenancy agreement between the parties. The learned Controller adopted appropriate course in deciding the issue that relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was not established. Decision by the Controller is not liable to be disturbed. The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

H.B.T./S-111/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.