MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Versus FAZAL ELLAHI

ORDER

1. MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J.‑ ‑The dispute relates to the ejectment of the petitioner from house No.B‑V‑3S‑205/F, Jandiala Road, Sheikhupura.

2. Respondent Mian Fazal Ellahi filed an application for the ejectment of the petitioner for non‑payment of rent for over three years prior to the filing of the ejectment petition. The appellant resisted the application contending that the respondent was neither the owner of the property nor was he his tenant. In effect, therefore, the relationship of landlord and tenant was denied. The Rent Controller after a careful analysis of the oral and documentary evidence decided this issue against the appellant and ordered his ejectment. It will be of interest to reproduce the remarks of the Rent Controller as regards the quality of the possession of the respondent.

3. "As it has been discussed above the respondent has not only denied relationship of landlord and tenant but has also denied the ownership of the petitioner vis‑a‑vis the disputed property. However, it is astonishing to note that the respondent has not stated his own status concerning the disputed property.

4. He has not got ownership of the same neither from the Govern?ment nor from any private person. It is not the case of the respondent that he is the tenant of some other person. Although a suggestion was put to the petitioner in cross‑examination that one Abida Begum was allotted the disputed property, but it has not been proved. Moreover, it is not the case of the respondent that he is a tenant under the said Abida Begum."

5. On appeal, the Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura, set aside the conclusion of the Rent Controller holding: "Thus, from the evidence produced by the respondent it is not proved that appellant got the possession of the suit land as a tenant from the respondent and no relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties." This conclusion was wholly erroneous as the appellant was not able to deny that the respondent had purchased the property from the transferee Niaz Hussain while he was in occupation of the suit property Therefore, under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, a statutory relationship of landlord and tenant had arisen which the appellate Court failed to notice. This being so there was no question of inducting the petitioner as a tenant.

6. Against the appellate order, the respondent invoked the writ jurisdiction and succeeded.

7. The thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order passed in appeal having assumed finality could not be disturbed by the High Court in the exercise of writ jurisdiction on an evaluation of the evidence by the appellate Court as the conclusion drawn by it to all intents and purposes was a conclusive finding of fact. This submission is without a substance as on a reading of the judgment of the High Court it appears to us that the High Court was of the opinion that the appellate Court "travelled beyond its jurisdiction in upsetting the well‑reasoned judgment of the learned Rent Controller" as it failed to consider the documentary evidence in its judicial perspective and arrived at an erroneous conclusion. The power of judicial review was available to correct such an error of law as the conclusion of fact was vitiated by the non-?consideration of important documentary evidence. (See Utility Stores Corporation of Pakistan Limited v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others P L D 1987 S C 447). The cases cited by the learned' counsel for the petitioner are distinguishable and do not support his proposition. The High Court also considered the dismissal of the suit earlier filed by the petitioner on the statement of the respondent that the petitioner was his tenant and that he would not dispossess him except in accordance with law. However, what the respondent stated was an admission in his favour which was hardly of any relevance and the petitioner could not be held to be bound by it.

8. Having regard to section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compen?sation and Rehabilitation) Act, it was not open to the petitioner to dispute his position as a statutory tenant as he failed to establish that the respondent was not the purchaser from the transferee of the property and thus to claim independent title to possession.

9. On this view of the matter, the petition is without any substance and is dismissed.

10. M.B.A./M‑457/S ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.