MANZOOR AHMAD vs Mat. FATIMA BIBI
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's second appeal against eviction from a residential house on the ground of default in rent payment and denial of the landlord-tenant relationship. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could evade eviction and the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller by claiming that an unregistered agreement to mortgage executed by the respondent's son altered his status from a tenant to a mortgagee, absolving him from paying rent. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact against the petitioner regarding the lack of proof of execution and absence of valid authorization or special power of attorney in favor of the respondent's son to execute the document were unexceptionable. Since the petitioner admitted to being a rent defaulter for over a decade and failed to establish his plea, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed. The key principle laid down is that a tenant denying the landlord-tenant relationship based on an unproved or unauthorized agreement cannot escape eviction proceedings for prolonged rent default.
- Whether a tenant who denies the relationship of landlord and tenant can evade eviction proceedings without establishing an alternative binding legal status?
- Does an unproved agreement to mortgage executed without a valid special power of attorney absolve a tenant from paying rent under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance?
- Can concurrent findings of fact regarding the failure to prove the execution of a document be interfered with in a petition for leave to appeal?
- Section 2(f), West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-Leave to appeal is sought from the judgment dated 23rd of December 1979 passed by the Lahore High Court whereby the second appeal filed by the petitioner against his eviction from a house was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner having denied the relationship of landlord and tentant between the parties, had failed to establish his plea and accordingly, the rent not having been paid, he was liable to be evicted.
2. ' The petitioner's case was that the relationship between the parties was not of tenant and landlord, that the respondent on receipt of Rs, 3,000 from the petitioner on 3-2-1964 had agreed vide Exh. D. 1 to mortgage the house through a properly executed registered deed; and that although the formal mortgage deed was not executed nevertheless the petitioner could not be treated as a tenant under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance as on account of the agreement he was not liable to pay the rent. That being so the respondent could not file an eviction application before the Rent Controller for petitioner's eviction as a tenant. This plea however, not having been accepted upto the High Court, the petitioner has sought leave to appeal through this petition.
3. ' Learned counsel has not denied that no rent was paid by the petitioner to the respondent for over a decade. He has, however, reiterated the petitioner's plea namely, that on account of the execution of the document Exh. D. 1, which for all purposes, according to the learned counsel should have been treated as mortgage deed and could have been compulsorily registered, the petitioner should have been treated as a tenant. He also argued that the case being not of statutory tenancy, the petitioner, on account of the execution of the document Exh. D. 1 by the respondent in favour of the petitioner, could not be brought under the definition of tenant as contained in section 2 ( f ) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance.
4. The argument raised by the learned counsel has no factual basis. All the learned Courts gave concurrent findings of fact against the petitioner with regard to the proof of the execution of the document Exh. D. 1 which was alleged to have been executed by Mohammad Sadiq son of the respondent landlady. The petitioner had failed to establish that Mohammad Sadiq had a special power of attorney to execute the document Exh. D. 1 on behalf of his mother. The petitioner did not summon/exaimine Mohammad, Sadiq in order to establish that he in fact executed the document and/or that he was authorised by his mother to do so. Reliance of the learned counsel on other material in the absence of cogent direct evidence, is of no help to the petitioner. Admittedly, he is rent defaulter for such a long time. This is not a fit case for grant of leave. This petition is accordingly dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- ABDUL MAJEED vs Syed NAZIMUDDIN 1982 CLC 2654