Muhammad Sadiq (Deceased) through his legal representatives vs Additional District Judge, Rajanpur and others
This petition challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, which maintained an ejectment order against the petitioners. The core dispute arose from an ejectment application filed by the respondent against the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest, which was allowed by the Rent Controller in 1987. Concurrently, the petitioners' predecessor had filed a suit for specific performance, claiming the property had been sold to him via an agreement dated 18.11.1963. The trial court dismissed the specific performance suit, and the High Court maintained this dismissal. The Supreme Court, noting that the Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal against the High Court's judgment on the specific performance suit had already been dismissed, found no merit in the current petition. The Court held that since the claim of ownership based on the alleged sale agreement was rejected in the specific performance suit, the ejectment order was valid and required no interference. The judgment affirms the principle that an ejectment order remains sustainable where a tenant's claim of ownership through specific performance has been conclusively rejected by the courts.
- Does the dismissal of a suit for specific performance regarding a disputed property justify the maintenance of an ejectment order against the occupant?
- Can an ejectment order passed by a Rent Controller be sustained when the occupant's claim of ownership has been rejected by the courts?
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--This petition calls in question the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan dated 10.12.2003.
2. Precisely stating the facts of the case are that the respondent filed ejectment application against the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners which was allowed by the Rent Controller on 15.12.1987. In the meanwhile the petitioner's predecessor-in-interest filed a suit for specific performance on the averments that disputed property had been sold to-him by the respondent vide Agreement dated 18.11.1963, therefore, a decree be passed against the respondent directing him to perform his part of obligation. The suit was ultimately dismissed and the judgment of the Trial Court was maintained by the High Court, vide judgment dated 10.12.2003. Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 298- L of 2004 filed against the said judgment has also been dismissed by this Court by the order of even date.
3. The ejectment order dated 15.12.1987 passed by the Rent Controller was .Maintained by the learned Additional District Judge, Rajanpur, vide judgment dated 2.11.1989. The petitioner assailed the judgment of the Appellate Court before the High Court which has been dismissed through the judgment dated 10.12.2003 . Since the plea of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was that he had purchased the property in dispute has not been accepted by the High Court and the Civil Petition No. 298U2004 challenging the said judgment, as stated above, has also been dismissed by this Court, therefore, we are of the view that impugned judgment is just and proper and needs no interference by this Court.