Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: FARRUKH SULTANA VS Respondent: ZAHOOR DINHonorable Justice Afrasiab KhanSh. Hamid Mukhtar,Ch. Muhammad Bakhsh
1988 C L C 1781
1988 C L C 1781
[Lahore]
Before Afrasiab Khan, J
Mst. FARRUKH SULTANA‑‑Petitioner
versus
ZAHOOR DIN and others‑‑Respondents
Writ Petition No.3 of 1988, decided on 25th January, 1988
West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑‑
‑‑‑S. 13‑‑Ejectment proceedings‑‑Rent Controller, while passing an order, observing that petitioner was tenant under respondents, that there existed relationship of landlord and tenant between parties and that the petitioner had refused to pay the rent‑‑Case of petitioner that she had invested a huge amount in repairs of property in dispute and that said fact should have been verified by appointing a Local Commissioner‑‑Statement of petitioner, as conceded by her counsel, still to be recorded by Rent Controller before whom she could prove about investment made by her in property in dispute with documentary as well oral evidence‑‑Petitioner, held, could not be said at such a stage, to have been deprived of an opportunity to prove her case‑‑No justification found for interference in the matter‑‑Petition found to be without substance and dismissed.
Sh. Hamid Mukhtar for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Bakhsh for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 20th January, 1988.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner first. Farrukh Sultana has moved this Consti tutional petition praying therein that the order, dated 5‑12‑1987 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Lahore, may be declared without lawful authority and of no legal consequence.
2. The case of the petitioner is that she had invested a huge amount in the repairs of the property in question and that this fact should have been verified by appointing a Local Commissioner. The learned Rent Controller Ode his order, dated 5‑12‑1987 observed that the petitioner is a tenant under the respondents landlords and that admittedly there existed relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. He further observed that the, tenant has refused to pay the rent. Learned counsel for the petitioner conceded that the statement of the petitioner has still to be recorded and that if she is not allowed to produce further evidence, she will suffer irreparable loss as well as her entire investment will go waste which has been made by her in the property in question. Be that as it may, it may be noted that admittedly the statement of the petitioner is still to be recorded by the learned Rent Controller. She can prove before the learned trial Court about the investment made by her in the property in question with documentary evidence, if any, as well. Thus, it cannot be said at this stage that the petitioner has been deprived of an opportunity to prove her case. The learned Rent Controller shall give adequate opportunity to the petitioner to prove her contention. If the petitioner is in possession of some documentary evidence, she may produce the same before the learned Rent Controller. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that several opportunities were given to the petitioner to produce her evidence in support, of her contention but she failed to adduce evidence. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner wants to prolong the litigation without any justification.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. I do not find any justification to interfere in the matter. The petitioner has still to make a statement before the learned trial Court. She may prove her contention while making her statement. Needless to say that apart from making oral statement before the learned trial Court, she will be entitled to produce the documentary evidence as well in the case. With this observation, there is no substance in the petition which is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
S. Q. /F‑58/L Order accordingly.