Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No.1760 of 1987, decided on 13th May, 1987.

---Ss. 2(c)(i), 13 & 15--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199--Relationship of landlord and tenant--Proof--Concurrent finding of fact--Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of--Finding of fact in respect of existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between parties, concurrently arrived at by competent Tribunals below after minutely considering oral as well as documentary evidence on record and after due application of judicial mind, held, could not be interfered with by High Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction--Petitioner claiming that respondent was not lawful transferee of disputed premises and that his own appeal for transfer of premises in his name was pending adjudication, if so advised, could move competent civil Court for pursuing his remedy, if any, under law.

Muhammad Hussain Munir v . Sikandar etc. P L D 1974 S C 139; Muhammad Saleem etc. v Javed Iqbal etc. P L D 1982 S C (AJ&K) 64 and Asma v. District Judge Sialkot etc. P L D 1987 Lah. 263 ref.

Ch. Muhammad Mahmood for Petitioner.

Syed Najam-ul-Hassan Kazmi for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 13th May, 1987.

Respondent No.l Mst. Nishat Afroze (hereinafter to be known as land-lady) filed an eviction petition against the writ petitioner Abdul Bari in the Court of the Rent Controller, Lahore, for his ejectment from property bearing No. SWIV-70-S-8 situate at Shamnagar, Lahore, on the grounds that the petitioner was a defaulter in the payment of rent since October, 1981, and that the landlady required the house in question for her use as well as for the use and occupation of her children in good faith. The learned Rent Controller after recording the evidence produced by both the parties and hearing them, accepted the ejectment petition on 23-6-1985, holding that there existed relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The petitioner went in appeal before the learned appellate Authority. Lahore, and accordingly the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, rejected the appeal of the petitioner on 24-1-1987, thereby affirming the finding of fact given by the learned Rent Controller. However, the petitioner was given three months' time to hand over the vacant possession of the property in dispute to the landlady.

2. Petitioner, Abdul Bari, has challenged the impugned orders passed by the learned Rent Controller as well as by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, by moving this Constitutional petition.

3. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he is a non-claimant displaced person and he filed NCH form for the transfer of the disputed house in his favour and that the respondent landlady is not the lawful transferee of the disputed premises. It is submitted that the petitioner did file an appeal in 1971 for the transfer of the disputed house in his favour which appeal is still pending adjudication before the Settlement and Rehabilitation authorities. It is next vehemently contended that the learned Rent Controller as well as the learned Additional District Judge have failed to consider the material and important oral as well as documentary evidence produced by him and that substantial injustice has been caused to him. It was next maintained that the title over the property in question is disputed one and as such, the landlady should go before the Civil Court for the examination of her title first. On the basis of this, the learned counsel submitted that the eviction petition was pre-mature in late The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent landlady was forcefully contended that the respondent is the transferee of the disputed house. She being a claimant disputed person filed CH form for transfer of the whole house in question which was accordingly transferred to her by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 6-12-1959. She paid the transfer price and after clearance of the public dues, P.T.D. was also issued in her favour. It is stated that the P . T . D issued in her favour still subsists and the same .was neither challenged, nor has been set aside by any competent Court of law. The learned counsel stated that the learned Rent Controller as well as the appellate Authority have very minutely discussed the oral as well as documentary evidence item wise and nothing has been left out of consideration by the competent tribunals constituted under the provisions of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The learned counsel states that the learned Rent Controller had come to a positive conclusion that there existed relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. This finding of fact was affirmed by the learned Additional District Judge and the learned appellate Authority had given very solid grounds for affirming the finding of fact given by the learned Rent Controller. It is next contended that this is a question of fact arrived at by the competent tribunals and there is no jurisdictional defects in the orders of the competent tribunals and, therefore, Constitutional jurisdiction could not be exercised in such like matters. Reliance has been placed on Muhammad Hussain Munir v . Sikandar etc. (P L D 1974 SC 139), Muhammad Saleem etc. v. Javed Iqbal etc. (P L D 1982 S.C. (AJ&K) 64) and Asma v. District Jude Sialkot etc. (P L D 1987 Lahore 263).

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,- I am of the view that the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any jurisdictional defects in the impugned orders passed by the Courts below. The learned Rent Controller vide his order dated 23-6-1985 while giving the finding on issue No.l has discussed the entire evidence of both the parties, namely, the copies of P.T.D. (Ex.P.2), original P.T.O. (Ex.P.3), and the order of the Settlement Commissioner dated 5-12-1964 (Ex.P.ll) were taken into consideration by the learned Rent Controller. Similarly, the documents, a copy of status quo order granted by the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Ex.R.l), a- copy of NCH form (Ex.R.2), a copy of grounds of appeal (Ex.R .3), -a copy of application under section 5 of Limitation Act (Ex.R.4), a copy of application for stay order (Ex.R 5), a copy of grounds of appeal (Ei.R-6), a copy of grounds of appeal (Ex.R.7), a copy of application under section 5 of Limitation Act (Ex.R.8), and a copy of the order of Additional- Settlement Commissioner l1Jx.R.9) were the documents produced and relied upon by respondent in the case and these documents were minutely convidered and after due application of judicial mind, the learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the respondent is the landlady and the petitioner is a tenant under her. The learned Rent Controller has also categorically held in his order referred to above that the petitioner had also been paying the rent to the landlady. In the same way, the oral evidence of the witnesses of the parties was also considered. On appeal, the learned appellate Authorjty has also very deeply considered the oral as well as documentary evidence produced by both the parties. The learned appellate Authority after discussing the entire evidence has made a special reference to documents (Exs. P. 10 and P.11) to hold that the property in question was validly transferred to the landlady. About the oral evidence, the learned appellate Authority observed that despite lengthy cross-examination of P.W. 1, his evidence could not be shattered or belied by the evidence produced by the writ petitioner. The contention of learned counsel that the petitioner filed appeal in 1971 and that his appeal is still pending adjudication had been considered and rejected by the competent forums. Even before me, the learned counsel has failed to show that his appeal for the transfer of the disputed premises is pending before the Settlement authorities. It was pointed out to the petitioner's counsel that as to what steps he has taken since 1971 for hearing of the said appeal, but he could not demonstrate anything to show that he has been pursuing his appeal. This clearly shows that there was no appeal whatsoever pending before the Settlement authorities. On the contrary, the decision of the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Lahore, dated 5-12-1964 (Ex.P.ll) is the conclusive proof to show that the respondent landlady was the transferee of the disputed house. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that the aforesaid order dated 5-12-1964 passed by the Settlement Commissioner was subsequently set aside by any higher judicial forum.

5. After scrutinizing the whole record very minutely and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I have come to the conclusion that the finding of fact arrived at by the learned Rent Controller as well as the appellate Authority, is not all exceptionable and that being a finding of fact, the High Court is not competent to interfere in the exercise of Constitutional Jurisdiction. The claim of the petitioner is that he is a non-claimant displaced person and that his appeal is pending adjudication for the transfer of the property in dispute and that transfer documents issued in favour of the respondent landlady are not above board. The petitioner, if so advised, may move the competent Civil Court for pursuing his remedy, if any, under the law.

6. So far as the present controversy is concerned, I have no hesitation whatsoever to hold that the landlady-respondent is the valid transferee of the disputed house and is the lawful owner of the same. In view of the above discussion; I proceed to dismiss the petition leaving the parties to bear their own costs. However, the petitioner is given a period of four months to hand over the vacant possession of 'the premises in dispute to the respondent.

H.B.T./ A-123/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.