MESSRS MUHAMMAD ISMAIL & Bros. vs Malik MUHAMMAD TAHIR Etc.
The petitioner-firm occupied a plot of land under a lease agreement with the Superintendent of Police, Gujranwala, for over fifteen years. Upon discovering the land was government property, the petitioner ceased lease renewals. Following a notice to vacate, the petitioner faced criminal proceedings under Section 448 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and subsequent eviction by the police. The petitioner challenged the police's interference with possession through a writ petition, which the Lahore High Court dismissed in limine. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the matter. The Court held that the petitioner, having entered into possession as a tenant of the police and having paid rent for fifteen years, was estopped from challenging the landlord's title. Applying the principle of tenant estoppel, the Court affirmed that the petitioner could not refute the respondent's title while remaining in possession of the property. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as devoid of merit, upholding the High Court's decision.
- Is a tenant estopped from challenging the title of their landlord while remaining in possession of the property?
- Does a tenant who has paid rent for fifteen years have the legal standing to refute the title of the lessor?
- Section 448, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 116, Evidence Act 1872
ORDER
MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN, J.-The petitioner-firm is in occupation of a plot of land bearing Khasra No. 2113, Khata No. 4311 measuring one kanal and fifteen marlas at G. T. Road, Gujranwala. The petitioner has raised construction on it. The petitioner obtained this plot on lease from the Superintendent of Police, Gujranwala. The lease was extended from time to time. After more than fifteen years the petitioner discovered that the land did not belong to the Superintendent of Police, Gujranwala but was the property of the Government and, therefore, declined to have the lease renewed by the Superintendent Police. The latter served a notice upon the petitioner on 6-6-1974 asking him to vacate the plot within 15 days as the lease had been granted to some other person. The petitioner approached the Member, Board of Revenue on 25-3-1975.
2. The police registered a case under section 448, P. P. C. Against him.
3. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 1975/73 before the Lahore High Court which was dismissed on the ground that the Board of Revenue was still seized of the matter.
4. The Police is then said to have removed the property of the petitioner from the factory and the petitioner then filed Writ Petition No. 2632 of 1976, claiming, inter alia, a declaration that the Police Department had no lawful authority to interfere with the possession. This petition was dismissed in limine on 2-11-1976 by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court. Hence this petition for special leave to appeal.
5. The resume of facts given above clearly domonstrates that the petitioner came into possession of the land in dispute gas a tenant of the police. Irrespective of whether the Superintendent of Police was or was not the owner of the land, he was the landlord of the petitioner and the petitioner had been paying rent to him for no less than 15 years. The petitioner is, therefore, estopped under section 116 of the Evidence Act from refuting the title of the respondent to the land so long as he is in possession of that property. This petition is, therefore, on the showing of the petitioner himself, has no merit and the order of the Lahore High Court impugned before us cannot be found fault with. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.
Cited by 6 cases
- Mrs. Azra Riaz vs Addl. District Judge & others 2020 LHC 3278, 2021 CLC 623
- Asghar Ali vs Tanvir Ahmad & others 2018 MLD 1231, 2018 PLJ Lahore 1026, 2018 LHC 872
- ABDUL RAUF Versus DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER (Female) 2013 YLR 2823
- MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ vs Mian MUHAMMAD IQBAL and 2 others 2012 YLR 2107
- ABDUL ZAHIR vs JAFFAR KHAN----ResPondent 2010 SCMR 189
- BARA KHAN vs MUNIR AHMAD 1989 PLD Quetta 94