SAID REHMAN and others vs Mst. SARDAR BEGUM and others

ORDER

' ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, C J.--This appeal with leave of this Court is directed against judgment dated 8-5-2001 passed by learned Division Bench of Peshawar High Court, Peshawar whereby Writ Petition No,212 of 1998 filed by respondents was accepted and eviction of appellants was ordered.

2. Briefly stated, facts giving rise to the filing of instant appeal are that respondent Mst. Sardar Begum filed three separate Ejectment Applications bearing No,67/RC/1988 (new No,4/RC of 1996), 68/RC/1988 (new No,5/RC of 1996) and 69/RC/1988 (new No,6/RC of 1996) against appellants, namely, Muhammad Yaqub, Quaim Khan and Said Rehman alias Gul and others respectively with regard to Suit bearing No,1466 situated in Mohallah Borian Bufan, Hashtanagri, Peshawar on the grounds of default in payment of rent, personal needs and for re-construction of the suit premises.

The proposed site plan/necessary sanction from the Municipal Corporation was annexed with the petition. The appellants were summoned but they refused to appear as such, ex parte ejectment order was passed against them. Later on, appellants filed applications for setting aside ex parte decree which was allowed on 1-4-1989 subject to payment of cost of Rs,50. Where after, appellants filed written statements an denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. The learned Rent Controller after framing of issues and hearing learned counsel for the parties accepted the ejectment applications vide judgment dated 2-10-1996 and held that relationship of landlord and tenant do exist in between the parties. Feeling aggrieved, appellants filed Appeals Nos.75/RA, 76/RA and 77/RA of 1996 before the learned Additional District Judge, Peshawar which were accepted vide single judgment dated 17-1-1998 and the ejectment order passed by the learned Rent Controller was set aside. This judgment was assailed by respondents through Writ Petition No,212 of 1998 before learned Peshawar High Court, Peshawar which was allowed vide impugned judgment as stated above.

3. Leave to appeal was granted by this Court on 23-10-2002 to appreciate the evidence.

4. We have heard Mr. Waseemuddin Khattak, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. M. Asif, learned counsel for the respondents at length and have gone through the record and proceedings of the case in minute particulars.

5. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that learned High Court has not appreciated the factual and legal aspects of the matter in its true perspective, which resulted in miscarriage of justice. According to him, only one writ petition was filed against three appeals, as such the same was not maintainable. He further contended that only evidence relied in all the ejectment applications was the statement of Muhammad Saeed Khan, Advocate who was not a witness in all three cases and he was only examined in one case (67/RC/1988). It is further contended that no document of ownership was produced by respondents to substantiate their claim that they were owners of the disputed premises and rent was ever paid to them by any of the tenants. He further contended that learned High Court acted contrary to the settled principle of law that reappraisal of evidence that too in writ petition on the statement of interested witness is not warranted. In support, he placed reliance on the case of Ali Muhammad v. Muhammad Mansha and others (1991 M LD 1572).

6. On the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents controverted above contentions and supported impugned judgment.

7. We have anxious thought to the arguments raised at the bar. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that respondents were not owners of disputed property has no force for the reasons that Muhammad Saeed, Advocate who was a marginal witness of the rent deed had categorically stated in his examination-in-chief that he was the scriber of the deed executed by the respondents in favour of appellants on 13-7-1972. Another marginal witness, namely, Sabir Hussain also supported the deed and verified his signature as marginal witnesses. Both the witnesses were subjected to cross-examination but their evidence remained unsheltered. It is settled principle of law that in rent cases only relationship of landlord and tenants is to be seen and not the title or ownership. When the relationship of landlord and tenant has been established then there is no need for placing on record ownership documents. The sanction 'by the Municipal Corporation for the proposed re-construction is also a valid ground for maintaining the ownership of the respondents, as the same cannot be obtained by a stranger. The learned High Court has passed an elaborate judgment by discussing each and every aspect of the matter. The case-law cited by learned counsel for the appellants is not relevant in the facts and circumstances of the case.

8. In view of above, we do not find any non-reading or misreading of the evidence in the impugned judgment warranting interference by this Court, which is maintained. The appeal being devoid of force is dismissed with no order as to costs.