SHER JANG vs MUHAMMAD SALIM AND ANOTHER
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against concurrent findings of lower courts ordering the eviction of the petitioner from a property due to default in rent payment. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, claiming ownership through a purchase deed, could challenge the eviction order based on the landlord-tenant relationship established by the lower courts. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's claim of ownership failed because his sale deed was both subsequent to and unregistered compared to the respondents' prior, registered sale deed. Consequently, the Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the landlord-tenant relationship. The Court affirmed that an unregistered, subsequent sale deed cannot supersede a prior, registered sale deed. Furthermore, as the petitioner failed to establish ownership, the finding of default in rent payment remained uncontested and valid. The petition was dismissed as devoid of merit, maintaining the eviction order.
- Does a subsequent unregistered sale deed take precedence over a prior registered sale deed?
- Can concurrent findings of fact regarding a landlord-tenant relationship be challenged in a petition for special leave to appeal?
- Is a tenant liable for eviction if they fail to pay rent and their claim of ownership over the property is legally invalid?
ORDER
KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.-Muhammad Salim and another (respond--ents) (landlords) filed an application for eviction of the petitioner from the property in dispute as described therein. The petition was accepted and the learned Rent Controller on 16-5-1979, passed an order directing his eviction on the ground of default in the payment of rent.
2. The first appeal and second appeal of the petitioner brought no fruit and were dismissed by the learned District Judge and the High Court on 17-10-1979 and 14-1-1580 respectively,
3. The petitioner has come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the same to this court.
4. It may be pointed out that all the Courts below have field that the petitioner was the tenant of the respondent who were also the owner of the property in dispute. These are questions of fact and nothing has been pointed out on factual or legal plane to warrant interference in the concurrent findings of the three Courts below thereon. When confronted with this situation learned counsel tried to argue that actually the petitioner was himself the owner of the property inasmuch as he had purchased the same from the same vendor on 29--J-1978, therefore, the finding that the petitioner was a tenant and not owner was not correct. The contention has no merit and was examined by ail the Courts below who held that actually the sale deed of the petitioner was dated 29-4-1978 and was subsequent to and earlier sale by the same previous owner on 7-3-1978 through a registered deed in favour of the respondents. It was further held that the sale deed relied upon by the petitioner was unregistered. In this state of affairs, in our view, tile petitioner cannot claim any better right in the property, because, is the very nature of things his alleged sale being subsequent and also unregistered could not have preference over a prior and registered deed of sale in favour of the respon--dents. If the ownership of the petitioner in the property in dispute was not accepted then it was conceded by the learned counsel, that it would not be possible for him to take any exception to the finding of default in the payment of rent because in fact his client had not given or tendered any rent to the landlords.
5. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed.
Cited by 2 cases
- Mst. MUMTAZ BEGUM vs (Mst.) WAZIR BEGUM K.L.R.1997 Civil Cases 195
- Mst. MUMTAZ BEGUM vs Mst. WAZIR B4GUM 1997 PLD Lahore 99