Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SHAUKAT JAVED VS Respondent: ABDUL KHALIQ
1988 S C M R 1573
1988 S C M R 1573
Present: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
SHAUKAT JAVED‑‑Petitioner versus Sh.ABDUL KHALIQ and others‑‑Respondents
Civil Petition No.422 of 1986, decided on 15th May, 1988.
(From the judgment dated 27‑1‑1986 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Writ Petition No.2982 of 1984).
West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑‑
‑‑‑Ss.13 & 15‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.185(3) & 199‑ Ejectment‑‑ Concurrent finding‑‑Relationship of landlord and tenant‑ Interference by High Court in writ jurisdiction‑‑High Court setting aside concurrent finding on relationship of landlord and tenant‑‑Title to disputed property not believed‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider contention that it was not open to High Court in writ jurisdiction to interfere with concurrent finding of District Judge and Rent Controller with regard to the relationship of landlord and tenant between parties and that High Court erred in casting doubt on the title of petitioner to property in dispute.
M.Ghani, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 15th May, 1988.
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑This petition for special leave to appeal arises out of an application for eviction filed by the petitioner against the respondents. The application was allowed by the Rent Controller and the appeal of respondent No.1 before the District Judge failed. Respondent No.1 then filed a Constitutional petition in the High Court. learned Single Judge accepted the petition and set aside the orders of the District Judge and the Rent Controller. The petitioner now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. The case of respondent No.1 in the ejectment proceedings was that the property in dispute did not belong to the petitioner but that it was owned by him and thus, the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties. The learned Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge rejected this plea. However, in writ jurisdiction, the High Court held that the petitioner had not been able to establish his title to the property in dispute.
3. In `support of this petition it is contended that it was not open to the High Court in writ jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent finding of the Additional District Judge‑ and the Rent Controller with regard to the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that it also erred in casting doubt on the title of the petitioner to the property in dispute. This contention needs examination. Leave to appeal is granted. Security for costs in the sum of Rs.5,000. The appeal may be made ready for hearing on the present record with permission /direction to the parties to file additional necessary documents, if any.
M.I./S‑162/S Leave granted.