MUHAMMAD SAEED AND OTHERS vs ABDUR RAZZAK AND OTHERS
The petitioners sought special leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court order dismissing their second appeal regarding an ejectment order. The core legal questions were whether the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties and whether the property in dispute was exempt from the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, on the basis that it vested in the Federal Government under the Jammu & Kashmir (Administration of Property) Ordinance, 1961. The Rent Controller, District Judge, and High Court concurrently held that the relationship of landlord and tenant was established, noting that the petitioners were estopped from denying this relationship under the Evidence Act, 1872. Furthermore, the courts found that the evidence was insufficient to prove the property vested in the Federal Government. The Supreme Court upheld these concurrent findings, ruling that the definition of 'landlord' in the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, included those entitled to receive rent, and that the petitioners failed to demonstrate any error in the lower courts' reasoning. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
- Does the definition of 'landlord' under the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, include a person entitled to receive rent?
- Are tenants estopped from denying the relationship of landlord and tenant under Section 116 of the Evidence Act 1872?
- Can a tenant challenge the title of a landlord after having executed a rent note in their favour?
- Section 116, Evidence Act 1872
- Jammu & Kashmir (Administration of Property) Ordinance 1961
- Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD HALEEM. J.-The petitioners seek special leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 10th of December, 1979, by which S. A.
0. No, 70 of 1972 was dismissed.
2. ' The petitioners were in possession of a portion of property bearing No, SE-11-26A-S-68A, situate close to Ahata Ghulab Bibi, in Sarai Sultan, Lahore, under a rent note dated 7th of February, 1974, executed by them in favour of the respondents. The rent fixed in the note was Rs, 300 p. m. The respondents, on 22nd of January, 1971, applied for their ejectment on the ground of non-payment of rent for the period from February 1968 to February, 1969 and June, 1970 to January.
3. 1971. The petitioners resisted the application on the ground that the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between them ; and further took the plea that it was the property of the State of. Jammu & Kashmir and vested in the Federal Government under the provisions of the Jammu & Kashmir (Administration of Property) Ordinance, 1961, and, therefore, it was exempt from the application of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The Rent Controller, without framing an issue, decided the controversy as to the existence of the relationship in the affirmative by-order dated 3rd of April, 1971, and further fixed the hearing on the 6th of May, 1961, for consideration as to the deposit of the rent and on that date ordered their ejectment as the default was admitted.
4. ' This order was upheld by the District Judge, Lahore, in first appeal and so also by the High Court in Second Appeal. The technical objection was repelled by the first appellate Court on the short ground that the word `landlord' in the definition clause of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, included a person who, for the time being, was entitled to receive rent in respect of any building which clearly covered the case of the respondents who had admittedly inducted the petitioners into the premises and received the rent. It was further held that the petitioners were estopped from denying their relationship of landlord and tenant under section 116 of the Evidence Act and, therefore, the Rent Controller was justified in deciding this issue in favour of the respondent. The High Court while upholding the Rent Controller's order further reached the conclusion that the facts brought on record were insufficient to establish that the property had vested in the Federal Government under the provisions of the aforesaid Ordinance.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners was unable to convince u that the concurrent view taken by the Courts below was erroneous and we A see no justification to interfere. Accordingly, the petition has no substance and is hereby dismissed.