SALEH MUHAMMAD Versus FATIMA

ORDER

1. ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, J.‑‑ The disputed premises from which the petitioner's eviction has been ordered, was admittedly the property of one Mst. Karim and both parties arc claiming title to it by purchase. Therefore, the main controversy in this case relates to the relationship of the landlord and tenant. The respondent relied upon sale agreement dated 4th April, 1977, which was sought to be proved through attesting witnesses Haji Hussain and Ibrahim. However, the receipt allegedly executed by Mst. Karima for the sale consideration shows the name of Mst.Rahima as the recipient of the amount. The petitioner based his case on a sale agreement dated 4th April, 1978, which was in confirmation of oral sale in the year 1967. in favour of petitioner's mother.

2. Learned Rent Controller decided the preliminary issue in favour of the, respondent landlady and ordered the ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of default in the payment of rent.

3. On appeal the learned Single judge of the Sind High Court affirmed the finding and order of the Rent Controller vide judgment dated 10th May. 1988.

4. In seeking leave to appeal from the judgment of the learned Single Judge, learned counsel contended that the mother of the petitioner had raised a bona fide claim of ownership of the disputed premises by purchase as early as 16th December, 1982, when she filed a suit for declaration. He further submitted that the ejectment application was filed about a month prior to that. The submission of the learned counsel was that the suit of the petitioner's mother has been pending since 1982 and upon the death of his mother in October, 1988, the petitioner has been substituted as legal representative in the suit. In the light of these facts it is contended by the learned counsel that the learned Judge in the High Court did not properly apply the principle laid down in Province of Punjab v. Mufti Abdul Ghani (PLD 1985 SC 1) as according to the learned counsel the petitioner should not have been dispossessed during the pendency of the suit A which would conclusively decide the issue of title to the property.

5. The contention raised requires consideration. Leave is granted accordingly. Security Rs.5,000. Appeal be prepared on the present record but the parties are directed to file all necessary documents for the disposal of the appeal. Stay to continue.

6. A.A./S‑415/S Leave granted.