BASHIR AHMED and others vs MUHAMMAD SAEED BHATTI and otherss
This civil appeal arose from a dispute regarding the ejectment of tenants from a commercial property. The appellants sought the ejectment of the respondents from a specific shop, while the respondents contested the application by denying the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship, asserting they occupied a different property entirely. The Rent Controller and the appellate court initially ruled in favor of the appellants, but the Lahore High Court subsequently set aside these orders, finding that the appellants failed to establish the tenancy and that there was a fundamental dispute regarding the identity and demarcation of the property in question. Upon review, the Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the High Court's decision. The Supreme Court held that where there is a clear dispute regarding the identity of the property occupied by the tenant versus the property claimed by the landlord, and the landlord fails to prove the respondents are in possession of the specific property described in the ejectment petition, the petition for ejectment must be dismissed. The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the landlord to establish the tenancy relationship concerning the specific property in dispute.
- Does an ejectment petition fail if the landlord cannot prove the tenant is in possession of the specific property described in the petition?
- Is a finding regarding the identity of property by the High Court subject to interference if the landlord fails to demonstrate the tenant occupies the property in question?
- Must a landlord prove the existence of a tenancy relationship for the specific property described in an ejectment application?
MIAN SHAKIRULLAH JAN, J.--- This appeal by leave of the Court has been filed by the appellants against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in S.A.O. No,99 of 1996, dated 5-11- 1998, whereby while accepting the appeal of the respondents, judgment and order of the two Courts below were set aside and the ejectment petition was dismissed with permission to the appellants for filing a suit by them.
2. The appellants filed an application for ejectment against the respondents in respect of property/shop bearing No,BI-12S-8 situated in Jawahar Market, Kamoke, District Gujranwala. The respondents contested the application by submitting written reply, whereby the stand of the respondents is that there is no relationship of the landlord and tenant between 'the parties for the reason that the respondents are in occupation, not of the property mentioned in the application but are in possession of shop bearing No,BI-10S-22, different properties in the same area. As a result of pleadings of the parties the Rent Controller framed the preliminary issues, which is reproduced as under:-- "(1) Whether there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the, parties?
(2) Relief."
3. After recording of the evidence, the ejectment petition of appellants was accepted and an ejectment order was passed, appeal filed by the respondent before the appellate Court also failed.
However, their second appeal before the High Court has borne fruit and the High Court while accepting the appeal, set aside the order of ejectment. The appellants/landlord being aggrieved of the order of the High Court filed a petition for leave to appeal before this Court, in which leave was granted vide order dated 17-7-2000.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The main considerations, which weigh, with the High Court while upsetting the judgment of the two Courts below, were:-- (1) that the appellants/landlord have not been able to prove the statutory as well as the contractual tenancy and (ii) that there are contradictory claims by the parties with respect to the title and question of demarcation of the property also involved. The appellants' claim of their ownership and the tenancy of the respondents is about Shop No,BI-12S-8, while the respondents claim with regard to their possession and occupation is about Shop No,BI-10S-22 both are different Evacuee properties and their aforesaid numbers have been mentioned in the relevant documents of the Settlement Department i.e PTO. And PTDs. The learned counsel for the appellants was repeatedly asked about the possession and occupation of the respondents in the property which the appellants claim and not the one which the respondents assert, as here the question of identity of the property involved but he utterly failed to point out from the record, that the respondents are in occupation of the property, which appellants have described in their ejectment petition. The findings of the High Court are unexceptionable and needs no interference.
5. The upshot of the above discussion is that this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.