Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SAMIULLAH VS Respondent: HAMEED KAUSAR
1988 S C M R 404
1988 S C M R 404
Present: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Muhammad Afzal Zu1lah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
SAMIULLAH--Petitioner
versus
HAMEED KAUSAR and others--Respondents
Civil Petition No.824 of 1987, decided on 20th December, 1987.
(From the judgment dated 3-10-1987 of the Lahore High Court in F.A.0. No.122/1986).
Cantonments Rent Restriction Act (XI of 1963)--
---Ss.17 & 24--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)- Ejectment--Concurrent finding on question of fact Interfered with- Relationship of landlord and tenant in dispute--Question whether petitioner was occupying house as tenant under respondent was one of fact in the case and answer to it depended entirely upon appreciation of evidence led by parties--Petitioner relying entirely upon oral evidence which was rejected by High Court and Rent Controller--No basis available for interfering with concurrent finding of fact--Leave Jo appeal was refused.
Pir Anwar Rahman. Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Ch. Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents
Date of hearing: 20th December, 1987.
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the order dated 3-10-87 of the Lahore High Court dismissing the appeal of the petitioner from an order of ejectment from a house made against him by the Additional Rent Controller, Lahore Cantt.
2. The house in question is situated in Bazaz Muhallah of Saddar Bazar, Lahore Cantt. It was formerly an evacuee property and was transferred to the mother of the respondents, Mst. Maryam Bibi, who is now dead. It was in the occupation of the father of the petitioner who is also dead. On 22-5-83, the respondents filed an application before the Additional Rent Controller for the eviction of the petitioner from the house on a number of grounds including those of default in the payment of rent and personal need. The petitioner resisted the application denying that he was occupying the house as a tenant under the respondents. He alleged that his father had entered into an agreement with the respondents for the purchase of the house and that in accordance with the agreement, had paid Rs.2,000 towards the price of the house: He further averred that he had been paying Rs.150 per month to the respondents on account of the installments of the sale price and compensation for the use of the house.
3. On the pleading of the parties the learned Additional Rent Controller framed an issue to the effect whether the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. The petitioner as well as the respondents led evidence and after considering the same the learned Additional Rent Controller held that the said relationship did obtain between the parties; consequently, he directed the ejectment of the petitioner.
4. From the order of the learned Additional Rent Controller the petitioner filed an appeal before the High Court After considering the evidence afresh, a learned Single Judge affirmed the finding of the Additional Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal. The petitioner now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
5. The question whether the petitioner was occupying the house as a tenant under the respondents was one of facts in this case as the answer to it depended entirely upon appreciation of the evidence led by the parties. In support of his case the petitioner relied entirely upon oral evidence which was rejected by the High Court as well as the learned Additional Rent Controller. On the other hand, the respondents produced a letter (Ex.P.4) which the petitioner had sent on 10-5-83 in response to the notice given to him by the respondents. It is to be noticed that in this letter the petitioner had made no mention whatsoever of the alleged agreement to sell. However, that may be, we can find no basis for interfering with a concurrent finding on a question of fact recorded by the High Court and the Additional Rent Controller.
6. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the application for eviction suffered from a serious legal defect inasmuch as the respondents did not implead the other heirs of his father therein. This contention is without any substance, for, there is no evidence on the record which may show that apart from the petitioner any of the other heirs of his father was in occupation of the house in question or had shown any interest in the present proceedings.
7. For the reasons stated above, we find no merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed.
M.I. /S-90/S Petition dismissed.