NAJAM SAEED AND OTHERS vs Mst. BASHIRAN
This appeal arose from an objection petition filed during the execution of an ejectment decree obtained by the respondent-landlady against two tenants. The appellants, claiming to be tenants in possession of the property, challenged the execution proceedings. The primary legal issue concerned the adjudication of objection petitions filed by third parties claiming tenancy rights, specifically whether such objectors must surrender possession before their objections are heard, and whether the appellants had established their tenancy over the disputed premises. The Supreme Court, having reviewed the evidence, determined that the appellants failed to substantiate their claim of tenancy over the property in question, except for a specific shop or clinic. The Court observed that the appellants' possession of the remaining premises was derived from the judgment-debtors against whom an ejectment order had already been passed. Consequently, the Court held that the appellants were obligated to deliver possession to the decree-holder. The appeal was dismissed, affirming that the appellants could not resist execution based on unsubstantiated claims of tenancy.
- Does a failure to produce rent receipts to identify the specific property claimed as a tenancy cast doubt upon the validity of the claim?
- Are occupants who derive their possession from judgment-debtors subject to the same ejectment order as the original judgment-debtors?
- Is an objection petition regarding possession maintainable when the objector fails to prove their independent tenancy over the disputed premises?
1. ' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.-Leave to appeal was granted to an objector, whose successors-in-interest are the appellants, to resolve the cleavage of opinion in the High Court as found in the decisions of All Hussain v. Rafiquddin and others and Mst. Sahibunisa and others v. Mahmooda Begum .
2. ' The facts of the case are that respondent-landlady sought the eviction of Nazir and Zardar from a portion of the property on the ground floor which was shown by metes and bounds in a plan accompanying the eviction petition. That ejectment application was allowed ex pane against Nazir and Zardar and their ejectment was ordered. Their effort to get the ex parte decree set aside failed.
3. While the decree-holder was getting the decree executed, an objection petition was filed by the appellants predecessor in interest contending that he was in possession of the property in respect of which an ejectment order had been obtained against Nazir and Zardar and his possession was that of a tenant and he could not be ejected therefrbm. The Executing Court recorded the evidence of both the parties but suddenly terminated the proceedings by holding that in view of the decision in All Hussain's case the objector himself must first surrender the possession of the property before such objection could be adjudicated. A revision petition filed by the appellants which was treated as an appeal, was dismissed following the decision of the High Court in All Hussain's case. Their revision petition also failed in the High Court for the same reason. Hence this appeal.
4. ' So far as the cleavage of opinion between the authorities referred to is' concerned, it has received attention and decision of this Court in Mst. Khurshid Begum v. Mst. Ghulam Kubra and no reconsideration of it is called for.
5. ' Evidence on the objection petition of the appellants had been recorded and concluded. We have examined it with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties to determine the capacity in1 2 3 which the objectors were objecting to the decreee.
6. ' The case of the appellants was that they were in occupation of the premises as tenants while their eviction was sought on the basis of a decree obtained against Nazir and Zardar. The case of the decree-holder was that only one hall, a room used as clinic was on tenancy with the predecessor- in interest of the appellants and the rest of the property was with the other tenants. The possession of the appellants over the clinic was protected but not over the other property the possession of which had been obtained by them after the ejectment order had been obtained against Nazir and Zardar.
7. ' The evidence on the record shows that not only the eviction was sought of Nazir and Zardar but also of the predecessor in interest of the appellants. Two separate eviction applications were filed for the purpose. In both the plan of the property had been filed. The predecessor in interest of the appellant was shown in possession of only the hall while Nazir and Zardar were shown and proceeded against in respect of the residential portion on the ground floor. Apart from this, it appears from the agreement arrived at between the parties, proved by Abdul Hakim and exhibited as R/I that it was only a shop which had been obtained on rent by Saeedul Hasan the predecessor in interest of the appellants and its rent was fixed at Rs,
175. To the same effect is the statement of Dr. Sharif, another Dentist and a tenant of the ground floor in the same building. The appellants have relied upon their electricity bill and a letter written to them by Ramzan, an agent of the landlady. These documents do not have the effect of proving the point in issue because the appellants' predecessor in interest had himself corresponded with the Rawalpindi Electricity Supply Company and there was no intervention of the landlady or her agents. The receipts for rents were admittedly issued to the appellants and they were in possession of it particularly of the period before they started depositing rent with the Rent Controller. At no stage did they produce it to identify the property of which they claimed to be the tenants. Such an omission as held in Maharaja Sris Chandra Nandy and another v. Rekhalanada Thakur and others "alone is sufficient to cast doubt upon the claim."
8. ' We find that their claim to rest of the property, other than the shop or clinic, was under the tenants/judgment debtors against whom order of ejectment had already been passed by the Controller. They must, therefore, 'deliver the possession to the landlady, the, decree-holder. This appeal is dismissed with costs. PLD 1977 Lah. 418 PLD 1959 (W. P.) Lah. 511 1982 SC It 90 AIR 1941 P C 16