ABDUL REHMAN Versus PARVEEN AKHTAR

1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑ This appeal, by leave of this Court, is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 21‑5‑1978 and arises in the following circumstances:‑

2. Mst. Parveen Akhtar, the respondent in this case, was married to Abdul Khaliq (the son of the appellant) on 11‑10‑1970. The case of the respondent is that a fortnight before her marriage with Abdul Khaliq, i.e. on 26‑10‑1970, she purchased the shop in dispute from the appellant for Rs.2,000 vide registered sale‑deed executed on 24‑9‑1970.

3. Mst. Parveen Akhtar and Abdul Khaliq lived together as husband and wife in a portion of the same building, in which the shop in dispute is situated, until 3‑1‑1974 but on that date Mst. Parveen left the house of the husband and sometimes thereafter filed a suit for dissolution of her marriage. She also filed an application in the Court of Rent Controller, Rawalpindi, for the ejectment of the appellant from the shop she got before her, marriage, on the ground of non‑payment of rent for the period beginning with the month of January, 1973.

4. In the written statement filed on behalf of the appellant he denied the claim of the respondent that she was his landlord asserting that he himself was the owner of the suit shop. In the replication filed by the respondent, however, she denied this assertion and claimed to be the owner of the suit shop and reiterated that the appellant was her tenant. In this view of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Rent Controller framed the following preliminary issue in the proceedings viz. "whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties"? In order to discharge the burden under the said issue, the respondent produced her father and brother as witnesses and her father also produced in his evidence a copy of the registered sale‑deed (Ex.A‑1) and a certificate from the office of the Excise and Taxation Officer, Rawalpindi (Ex.A‑2) in support of their case that respondent was the owner of the suit shop. As against this, the appellant appeared as his own witness and maintained the stand taken in the written statement that he was the owner of the suit shop and the same had not been sold by him to the respondent. The learned Rent Controller, however, relying on documents Exs. A‑1 and A‑2 held that the respondent was the owner of the suit shop of which the appellant was the tenant. Having recorded this finding, he proceeded to observe that according to the evidence tendered on behalf of the respondent, the appellant had failed to pay the rent of the suit shop for two years. For this conclusion, he relied upon the denial of the appellant in his cross‑examination to have signed the written statement as well as the Vakalatnama, which according to him, were actually signed by his son. According to‑him he was not aware of what was said in the written statement. From this, the learned Rent Controller concluded that "it can safely be presumed that he has no defence to offer because he has never denied his service in this petition the statement read between the lines will .not constitute any effective rebuttal of this issue. Therefore, I am left with no option except to accept the corroborative evidence of the petitioner and answer this issue in the affirmative". After deciding the said preliminary issue against the appellant, the learned Rent Controller subsequently allowed the application of the respondent and directed the ejectment of the appellant. Being aggrieved, the appellant challenged the judgment of the Rent Controller in appeal before the Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi, who vide his judgment dated 25‑1‑1978 allowed the same with the result that he dismissed the eviction application filed by the respondent.

5. The learned Additional District Judge differing with the view taken by the Rent Controller observed that the denial by the appellant of, his signatures on the written statement and the Vakalatnama had no bearing on the merits of the case. He was also of the view that the learned Rent Controller had attached undue weight to sale‑deed (Ex.A‑1) and the copy from the Assessment Register (Ex.A‑2), as these documents only related to establish the title of the respondent, and not that the appellant was her tenant in respect of the suit shop. Having recorded these findings, the learned Appellate Judge proceeded to analyse the evidence on record and concluded that the evidence of the respondent, which consisted of the evidence of her own father and brother did not inspire confidence, as also that the appellant could not have possibly got the shop on rent from his own daughter‑in‑law the respondent.

6. Being dissatisfied with the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, the respondent went to the High Court in Second.' Rent Appeal and the same was allowed by the impugned judgment. The view taken by the learned Judge in the High Court was that the denial of the appellant to have signed the written statement, the Vakalatnama or for that matter the sale‑deed (Ex. A‑1) would be sufficient to "denounce him as a liar". Proceeding from this premise, the learned Judge observed that reliance by the learned Rent Controller on Exts: A‑1 and A‑2 was necessary not so much to prove the title of the respondent, as to corroborate the oral evidence of her father and brother on the point that the appellant was her tenant and had defaulted in paying her the rent; that the recital made in Ex..A‑1 showed that the appellant had parted with the possession of the suit shop after its sale to the respondent; and that the view taken by the learned Additional District Judge that the‑ appellant, who was the father‑in‑law of respondent, could not have got the shop in dispute from her on rent, was erroneous observing "I do not understand what is unnatural in this. If the father‑in‑law could sell the property or receive consideration thereof from his son's wife, it would not be strange if he takes the same property on rent from his daughter‑in‑law on payment of rent".

7. We have heard Mr. Muhammad Afaal Siddiqi, Advocate‑on‑Record of the appellant in support of this appeal and Ch. Akhtar Ali Advocate‑on‑Record on behalf of the respondent.

8. After having considered all aspects of the matter we are inclined to agree with the view taken by the learned Judge in the High Court that the appellant's plea that the respondent was not the owner of the shop in dispute but that he himself was its owner, was a falsehood. The shop in question had been transferred to the appellant by a registered sale‑deed ‑and the transfer could be nullified only by filing a suit for cancellation of the registered sale‑deed.

9. In fact, we were informed by Mr. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on- Record for the respondent that such a suit was indeed filed but was dismissed on 30‑7‑1987 by a learned Civil Judge.

10. Be that as it may, we are not persuaded to hold that the order of the High Court suffers from any illegality or any such impropriety, which may require interference by this Court.

11. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed hereby, with costs.

12. M.I./A‑259/S Appeal dismissed.