Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No.3796 of 1985, decided on 13th. April, 1986.

---Art.199--West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), Ss.13 & 15--Finding of fact--Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of--Decision of District Judge as Appellate Court to decide question of title of landlord in respect of property in dispute himself, rather than leaving same to civil Court, held, would not be bad for want of authority--Findings of fact arrived at by District Judge that title of property vested in respondents/ landlords being based on evidence on record, held further, could not be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction o High Court.

Rehmatullah v. Ali Muhammad and another 1983 S C M R 1064 ref.

Muhammad Zainul Abidin for Petitioner.

Muhammad Aslam Riaz for Respondents Nos.3 to 7.

Date of hearing: 13th April, 1986.

Respondents No.3 to 7 applied for ejectment of the petitioner from shop located at Rail Bazar, Toba Tek Singh. The, Rent Controller vide his order, dated 2-2-1985 dismissed the ejectment application and directed the landlords to the Civil Court in order to establish their title. The order was challenged in appeal .by the landlords in the District Court and Mr. Muhammad Siddique Javed Chaudhry learned Additional District Judge, Toba Tek Singh vide order, dated 27-7-1985 has reversed the finding of the Rent Controller on the issue of relationship of landlord and tenant and has ordered the ejectment of the petitioner from the premises. This brings the tenant to the High Court invoking its constitutional jurisdiction.

2. The shop in question being evacuee property was transferred to Jan Muhammad son of Khair Din. A P.T.O. was issued in his favour on 10-3-1960. A P.T.D. was issued subsequently in 1971. Jan Muhammad died in 1977. A mutation of inheritance was sanctioned on 30-5-1981 and the shop in question was transferred to his legal heirs namely, respondents No. 3 to 7. On the strength of the P.T.D. and the mutation, respondents Nos.3 to 7 applied for ejectment of the petitioner claiming that the petitioner 'was their tenant through Muhammad Iqbal his son to whom the property had initially been rented out at the rate of Rs.200 per month. The case of the petitioner, on the other hand, is that the respondents have nothing to do with the property in question as the property belongs 'to another Jan Muhammad whose father s name was Khair Muhammad and not Khair Din and that Jan Muhammad died in 1965. He before his death had transferred the property to the petitioner in 1964 in pursuance of agreement of sale. The petitioner has not produced any document of transfer or any other document of title apart from the long possession he claims. But it is asserted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that Jan Muhammad from whom he claims to have obtained possession is survived by legal heirs who are all settled in England and that none of them have objected to the possession of the petitioner.

3. The two Jan Muhammad belonged to one and the same village. One Jan Muhammad died in 1965 and mutation of his inheritance was sanctioned in 1966. This mutation does not mention any shop which could be transferred to his legal representatives. The other Jan Muhammad who claimed to be the predecessor of respondents No.3 to 7 died in 1977, the mutation of his inheritance was sanctioned in 1981, and this mentions the shop in question. Muhammad Afzal Lambardar whose name has been mentioned in the mutation of inheritance of 1966 appeared as a witness and clarified the situation. He clearly stated that there were two different Jan Muhammad in the village, one died in 1965 and the other in 1977 and that the shop in question belonged to Jan Muhammad who died in 1977. The evidence produced on record was enough to show that the shop in question belonged to Jan Muhammad who died in 1977 and not to the other Jan Muhammad from whom the petitioner claims that he has obtained the Possession of the property in dispute. The findings of the learned Additional District Judge that title of the property vests in respondents No.3 to 7 is, therefore, rot open to any question. The petitioner should be fully aware of the true facts as he is s close relative of the respondents through marriage and by taking advantage of the similarity of the names of two Jan Muhammad he has served the interests of no one. The petitioner who claims title from the other Jan Muhammad has produced no evidence to support his contention. The legal heirs of that .tan Muhammad are alive and evidence could have been produced in his regard.

4. As regards the question of the status of landlord and tenant between the parties evidence was led to show that the property was rented out to Muhammad Iqbal at the rate of Rs.200 per month. Subsequently Muhammad lqbal delivered the possession of this property to his father Umar Din who, in the meantime, had sold his own shop which was adjacent to the present shop. There was a joint connection of electricity etc. in the two shops. After the sale of the shop belonging to Umar Din a new connection had to be applied for thus explaining the existence of the name of the petitioner in the different connections of the utilities obtained from the local authorities.

5. The question whether the question of title can be determined by the Rent Controller himself or not has been determined by the Supreme Court in the case of Rehmatullah v. Ali Muhammad and another 1983 S C M R 1064. The decision of the learned Additional District Judge to decide the question of title himself rather than leave it to a civil Court is, therefore, not bad for want of authority. No objection, therefore, can be taken to the impugned orders on ground of jurisdiction.

6. In view of the above considerations I find no merit in the writ petition. It is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their owns costs.

H.B.T./U-5/L 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.