AURANGZEB,BIBI Versus AKHTAR HUSSAIN

1. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑ The petitioner, an occupant of House No.169, 169‑A, Ward No.4, Saddar Bazar, Multan Cantonment, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, dated 17‑2‑1988 under section 24 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963, whereby her first appeal against the order of the Rent Controller evicting her from the property was dismissed.

2. The respondent claiming to have purchased the property, sought the eviction of the petitioner on the ground that she had denied the relationship of landlord and tenant, that she had not paid the rent of the property for the past five years, that he wanted the property for his own bona fide personal use. The petitioner in contesting the application took up the plea that the property was at one time evacuee and she was entitled to its transfer, and the transfer to the predecessor of the respondent was in violation of law. In the alternative she pleaded that she had received no notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, nor of its purchase by the respondent. As she denied the relationship of landlord and tenant, there was no question of making the payment of any rent whatsoever. An issue was framed by the learned Rent Controller, "whether the relationship exists between the parties as landlord and tenant". It was decided on 14‑11‑1985 in favour of the respondent‑landlord and eviction of the petitioner ordered. On appeal the High Court by an order dated 1‑12‑1986 framed an additional issue "in case of proof of Issue No.1, whether the respondent, now appellant, is not liable to ejectment", and remanded the case to the Rent Controller for trial. It was reheard and the learned Rent Controller once again ordered her eviction holding both issues in favour of the respondent‑landlord.

3. In the First Appeal to the High Court a number of grounds were taken for avoiding the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The Rent note was repudiated. The conduct of the counsel was repudiated. The pleadings were repudiated. A new case outside the pleadings was set up of once earlier having obtained the order of ejectment against her and the landlord thereafter having got it executed by dispossessing her and her reoccupying the property with the assistance of Police Force and retaining possession as a trespasser.

4. The learned Judge in the High Court examined and rejected all the contentions upholding the order of the Cantonment Rent Controller.

5. Maulvi Siraj‑ul‑Haq, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there was evidence on the record that the petitioner had been dispossessed from the property but had immediately thereafter with the assistance of Police broken open the lock placed on the property by the Bailiff and occupied it as a trespasser. Hence she was not a tenant and could not be dealt with as such. Another contention was that a Civil Suit in respect of the title to this property was pending.

6. The High Court dealt with the contentions of the learned counsel in the words that follow:‑

7. "From these documents it is proved beyond any doubt that the said ejectment order was not executed and the appellant was not physically ousted from the house in dispute. Another application was moved for eviction of the appellant by Dr. Abdul Irshad on 19‑4‑1971, a copy of which has been placed on the record as Ex.A.19 which was contested by the appellant by filing reply on 19‑6‑1975 which is Ex.A.20. In this reply she denied the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant due to absence of statutory notice under section 30 of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. It is pertinent to note that in this reply no plea was raised that she trespassed into the house after having been dispossessed in execution of earlier order of ejectment passed on 29‑1‑1970 against her and as such she was not tenant. However, this application was dismissed in default on 2‑3‑1978, a copy of order of the Rent Controller to this effect is Ex.A.25 and Ex.A.26."

8. This plea of forcible occupation was not taken up in the written statement. The Bailiff's report contradicted this contention and could not be overcome by oral evidence.

9. As regards the second contention, it is correct that a Civil suit is pending but a temporary injunction asked for by the petitioner was refused to her by Civil Courts and even her petition for leave to appeal (C.P.L.A. No.287‑R/85) was dismissed.

10. The findings of the two authorities relate to questions of fact and there is no question of law arising therein which may require further examination by this Court. Leave to appeal is therefore, refused.

11. M.I./A‑228/S Petition dismissed.