MUHAMMAD YOUSAF vs MUHAMMAD HASSAN And Other
This petition for leave to appeal arose from an eviction proceeding where the tenant and the previous owner disputed the landlord's title. The landlord asserted ownership based on a registered sale-deed and produced a photostat copy of the deed before the Rent Controller. No objection was raised by the petitioner regarding the admissibility of the photostat copy before either the Rent Controller or the first appellate court, both of whom concurrently found the relationship of landlord and tenant established. The High Court, on review, declined to interfere with this concurrent finding of fact, noting the lack of timely objection to the document's admissibility. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the High Court's decision, ruling that since the previous owner had already filed a separate civil suit challenging the sale transaction, it would not interfere with the concurrent finding of fact at the instance of a petitioner who is merely a tenant. The petition was consequently dismissed.
- Can a party object to the admissibility of a photostat copy of a document for the first time in review or second appeal if no objection was raised before the trial and first appellate forums?
- Should the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant at the instance of a tenant when a separate civil suit challenging the landlord's title is already pending?
ORDER
M. S. H. QURAISHI, J.-The point raised in this petition for leave to appeal is that the Rent Controller, on the question of title of respondent Muhammad Hassan, should not have acted on a photostat of - the sale-deed. The said respondent had asserted that he had purchased the disputed property from its previous owner Mst. Bashiran Bibi by a registered sale-deed dated 12-9-1974, in proof of which he had produced a photostat of the same. The transaction had been denied not only by the petitioner who was a tenant but also by Mst. Bashiran Bibi (since deceased and represented by respondents 2 to 8) the previous owner who had got herself impleaded in the proceeding. No objection having been taken either before the Controller or the first appellate Court to the production of the copy, both the Tribunals had accep--ted the transaction as proved and consequently had found the issue of relationship in favour of Muhammad Hassan respondent No. 1.
In second appeal the High Court without adverting to the point, remanded the matter for other reasons. The point was, however, raised by way of review but the same was turned down by the impugned order dated 6-4-1931 as in the opinion of the learned Judge no objection having been taken by the petitioner to the admissibility of document in time and the question of the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant being one of fact which had been concur--rently found against the petitioner, the plea was of no consequence.
2. It appears from the submissions made that Mst. Bashiran Bibi has already filed a suit challenging the transaction of sale which is said to be pending at appeal stage. In the circumstance, we are not inclined to interfere with the finding of the High Court at the instance of the petitioner who is only a tenant in respect of the property. The petition for grant of leave tot appeal is dismissed.