MUHAMMAD AFZAL vs ABDUR RAUF AND 2 Other
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from an ejectment order passed against the petitioner for non-payment of rent in respect of a shop situated in Sialkot. The respondents landlords filed an ejectment application under Section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance VI of 1959, which was allowed by the Rent Controller and subsequently upheld by the District Judge in appeal and a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in second appeal. The core legal question concerns the liability of the tenant to pay rent when claiming co-ownership, and whether eviction was lawfully ordered. The Supreme Court held that since the respondents proved regular transfer of the property from the Settlement Department along with a Permanent Transfer Deed and service of notice, and the petitioner failed to substantiate any claim of co-ownership or payment of rent, the concurrent eviction orders by the lower forums were fully justified. The petition was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that a tenant who fails to prove any proprietary interest or pay rent despite being a proven tenant of regular transferees is lawfully liable to eviction.
- Whether a tenant denying the landlord's title and claiming co-ownership without evidence is liable to eviction for non-payment of rent?
- Are concurrent findings of fact by lower rent forums regarding default in rent payment open to interference without record support?
- Whether regular transferees holding a Permanent Transfer Deed from the Settlement Department are entitled to seek ejectment of a defaulting tenant?
- Section 13, West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959
ORDER
KARAM GLAHEE CHAUHAN J-The dispute in this case is about a shop bearing No. 8/15, situated in Kanak Mandi, Sialkot. Abdur Rauf and others (Respondents/,landlords) filed an application under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance VI of 1959, for ejectment of the petitioner from that property on the ground of non-payment of rent. The application was accepted by the learned Rent Controller who by means of his order dated 25-6-1973 directed the eviction of the petitioner from that shop.
2. The petitioner filed an appeal but without any success as the same was dismissed by the learned District Judge on 22-7-1974. The petitioner then filed a second appeal being S. A. O. No. 178/74 which met the same fate and was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court on 10-10-1974.
3. The petitioner has come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the same to this Court.
4. It is conceded by the learned counsel that his client has not paid a single penny towards rent, for the position which he had-taken in this case was that he is actually a co-partner in and co- transferee of the property and as such was not liable to pay rent. The Courts below, however, have found that there was not an iota of evidence to show as to what was the inter or right of the petitioner in the shop which had been transferred by to Settlement Department to the respondents/landlords. Even today the learned counsel could not point out anything from the record in support of the plea taken up by his client. On the other hand, the respondents/landlords have proved that they are regular transferees of the property from the Settlement Department and have obtained regular PTD in their favour. They served the regular notice or notices on the petitioner/tenant but despite their receipt he did not pay any rent. In the circumstances the Courts below were perfectly justified in directing and maintaining his eviction.
5. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed.
Cited by 3 cases
- IMRAN vs THE STATE and anothers 1998 P Cr. L J 1022
- SIKANDAR ALI and others vs MUHAMMAD AKHTAR and others 1996 CLC 324
- MUHAMMAD RAFI and others vs KHALID RAUF AHMAD and another 1986 MLD 722