Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD SHARIF VS Respondent: MAIRAJ DINHonorable Justice Saad Saood Jan
1988 S C M
1988 S C M .R 1387
Present: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
Haji MUHAMMAD SHARIF‑‑Petitioner
versus
Qazi MAIRAJ DIN and another‑‑Respondents
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.4 of 1985, decided on 28th May, 1988.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 21‑10‑1984 in Writ Petition No.1139 of 1984) .
West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑‑
‑‑‑S.13‑‑Ejectment on ground of default in payment of rent‑‑Tenant denying the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties‑ Document on which tenant relied for claiming the property was. a mutation attested on 6‑3‑1973 in favour of his predecessor‑in‑interest which did not indicate that it related to the house in dispute‑‑Transfer document, in favour of landlord, on the other hand, specifically gave the number of the house in dispute‑‑Relationship of landlord and tenant, held, existed in circumstances.
Ch. Muhammad Farooq, Senior Advocate Supreme Court arid Rana Maqbul A. Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 28th May, 1988.
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The dispute in this petition relates to House No.1/1596‑97. It was evacuee property and as a result of auction it was permanently transferred to respondent No.1 on 29‑5‑1971. It was in the occupation of the petitioner. Respondent No.1 filed an application for the eviction of the petitioner on the ground of default in the payment of rent. The petitioner denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The Rent Controller held that such relationship existed between the parties. As it was not the case of the petitioner that he had paid any rent to respondent No.1. The learned Rent Controller directed his eviction. The petitioner filed an appeal before the District Judge. The learned District Judge reversed the finding of the Rent Controller and set aside the order of eviction. Respondent No.1 challenged the order of the District Judge in a writ petition in the High Court. A learned single Judge examined the entire evidence and found that the District Judge had not considered the entire material before him. Accordingly he set aside the order of District Judge and restored that of the Rent Controller.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and area of the opinion that the order of the learn6d Single Judge does not suffer from any infirmity of any kind and there was sufficient justification with him to interfere with the order of the District Judge. The document upon which the petitioner relies for claim in the property is a mutation attested on 6‑3‑1973 in favour of his predecessor‑in‑interest. This document does not indicate that it relates to the house in dispute. On the other hand the Transfer document issued to respondent No.1 specifically gives the number of the house in dispute. This petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed.
M . B . A . / M‑479/ S Petition dismissed.