Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUSHTAQ AHMED VS Respondent: KARAMAT ALI, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE
1997 M L D 1990
1997 M L D 1990
[Lahore]
Before Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J
MUSHTAQ AHMED ‑‑‑Petitioner
versus
Ch. KARAMAT ALI, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE and others‑‑‑Respondents
Writ Petition No. 16095 of 1995, decided on 5th June, 1996.
West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S.13‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑ Relationship of landlord and tenant‑‑‑Denial of such relationship by tenant‑‑ Courts below decided issue of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties primarily on basis of evidence on record‑‑‑Tenant's civil suit claiming ownership of property in question was dismissed by Trial Court but was remanded for decision afresh by Appellate Court ‑‑‑Ejectment of tenant concurrently ordered by two forums below could not be set aside merely on ground that suit of tenant had been remanded‑‑‑Concurrent findings of Rent Controller and Appellate Forum were properly based on appraisal of evidence‑‑ Where any person was owner of a property he could legitimately claim to be landlord thereof‑‑‑Findings of forums based on proper appraisal of evidence could not be interfered with in Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court‑‑‑ Tenant had failed to establish any right whatsoever in property in question‑‑ Tenant's plea of adverse possession had been validly repelled by Courts below‑‑ Mere pendency of civil suit would not debar Rent Controller (Tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction) from determining existence of relationship of landlord and tenant and while doing so also deciding question of title‑‑‑Where Rent Controller felt that title of landlord was disputed bona fide and for valid reasons, he could refer parties to civil suit‑‑‑Such course, however, could not be adopted in case of every denial even though frivolous ‑‑‑Ejectment order of Courts below was, thus, not amenable to interference in Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court.
Province of Punjab v. Abdul Ghani PLD 1985 SC 1; Haji Muhammad Ramzan v. Mian Jamil Shah PLD 1967 Pesh. 380; Karim Bakhsh v. Haji Ghulam Dastagir and others 1990 CLC 1146; Muhammad Shafi v. Dr. M.A. Virk, etc. 1988 MLD 2945; Rehmatullah v. Ali Muhammad and another 1983 SCMR 1064 and Mir Salah‑ud‑Din v. Qazi Zaheer‑ud‑Din PLD 1988 SC 221 rel.
Mushtaq Raj for Petitioner. Arshad Mehmood Mian and M.M. Afzal for Respondent No.3
Date of hearing: 5th June, 1996.
JUDGMENT
This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 arises out of an application under section 13 of Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 brought by respondent No.3 against the petitioner, seeking his eviction from Plot No.24, Block No.2 Karim Park, Kacha Ravi Road, Lahore which was allowed by the Rent Controller vide his order dated 12‑1‑1995 which was affirmed in appeal by the Additional District Judge on 12‑10‑1995.
2. The aforesaid application for eviction was defended by the petitioner on the plea that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondent No.3. The petitioner also filed a suit for permanent injunction in which he claimed that he had become owner of the house on account of adverse possession. That suit was also dismissed by the Rent Controller on 15‑12‑1992, but on appeal it has been remanded to the Trial Court.
3. The first contention raised by Mr. Mushtaq Raj. Advocate, in support of this petition is that the decision of the Appellate Court on the question of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was primarily based upon the fact that the civil suit filed by the petitioner has since been dismissed but subsequently on appeal the said suit has been remanded for decision afresh to the Civil Court and as such the judgment of the Additional District Judge cannot be sustained.
4. This contention of the learned counsel has not impressed me. From a' perusal of the judgment of the Additional District Judge it is to be seen that he had decided issue regarding existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties primarily on the basis of the evidence on record and the fact that the civil suit filed by the petitioner has since been dismissed was only one of the factors noticed by him. In these circumstances, his decision cannot be upset merely on the ground chat the suit of the petitioner has since been remanded.
4‑A. On the question of existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties there are concurrent findings recorded by the Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge which are based upon proper appraisal of the evidence. While coming to this conclusion the two sale‑deeds in favour of respondent No.3 Exh.AW.8/3 and AW.8/4 have also been rightly upon which conclusively prove the ownership of respondent No.3.
5. The petitioner's learned counsel contended that the two sale‑deeds at the most prove that the respondent was the owner of the property in dispute but were not relevant for the purposes of determination of the question as to whether or not the petitioner was a tenant under respondent No.3. This argument is devoid of any force. The Supreme Court of Pakistan in Province of Punjab v. Abdul Ghani PLD 1985 SC 1 has held that if a person is owner of the property he can legitimately claim to be its landlord.
6. The other documentary evidence relied upon by the Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge are the entries in the record of Excise and Taxation I which show that the petitioner is in occupation of the property as a tenant under the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner relying on Haji Muhammad Ramzan v. Mian Jamil Shah PLD. 1967 Pesh. 380 has contended that these entries have no relevance. However this Court in two cases which the Additional District Judge has relied upon in his impugned judgment namely Karim Bakhsh v. Haji Ghulam Dastagir and others 1990 CLC 1146 and Muhammad Shafi v. Dr. M.A. Virk, etc. 1988 MLD 2945 has taken the view that the findings of the Courts below about the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant based upon the entries of PTI Register corroborated by the oral evidence cannot be interfered with in the Constitutional jurisdiction.
7. Be that as it may, the Rent Controller as also the Additional District Judge held that the tenancy stands proved on the basis of oral evidence led by respondent No.3 including the statement of Abdul Sattar A.W.6, the previous owner of the property and Muhammad Nazir A.W.7. These findings which are based on proper appraisal of the evidence cannot be interfered with in the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.
8. It is also to be noted that the petitioner has failed to establish any right whatsoever in the property. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner has become owner by adverse possession. This contention was noted by the Rent Controller as also the Additional District Judge and has been repelled for valid reasons.
9. Mr. Mushtaq Raj, Advocate learned counsel for the petitioner also urged that as the civil suit is pending between the parties the Rent Controller should not have decided the question of title but should have waited for the decision of the civil suit.
10. Again I am not in agreement with the learned counsel. Mere pendency of a civil suit does not debar the Rent Controller which is the Tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction to determine existence of relationship of landlord and tenant and while doing so also to decide the question of title. The law is well settled that it is only where the Rent Controller feels that the title of the landlord is disputed bona fide and for valid reasons that he may refer the parties to Civil Court. Such course cannot be adopted in case of every denial even though frivolous. The reliance of the learned counsel on Rehmatullah v. Ali Muhammad and another 1983 SCMR 1064 is misplaced as that case goes against the proposition being advanced by him rather than helping him. This judgment has been explained by the Supreme Court in its subsequent judgment in Mir Salah ud‑Din v. Qazi Zaheer‑ud‑Din PLD 1988 SC 221 where it was reiterated that it is open to the Rent Controller to decide even the question of title and the parties need not referred to the Civil Court.
In view of what has been stated above, this petition is without force and is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The petitioner is allowed one month to vacate the premises.
A.A./M‑195/L Petition dismissed.