NAZIR HUSSAIN vs TAJ MUHAMMAD and another
This matter arises from an ejectment petition filed by the respondents against the petitioner under section 13 of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, alleging default in rent payment and the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship based on a registered sale deed. The Rent Controller ordered ejectment, which decision was successively upheld by the Additional District Judge in appeal and the Peshawar High Court in second appeal. The core legal question concerns the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant and whether the lower courts properly evaluated the oral and documentary evidence in determining this relationship. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were based on proper appreciation of evidence, noting that the respondent established ownership via a registered sale deed and supporting testimony, whereas the petitioner failed to substantiate his claim of inheritance or ownership through a dower deed. Leave to appeal was refused and the petition dismissed. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of fact regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant, supported by documentary and oral evidence, will not be interfered with by the Supreme Court when the contesting party fails to substantiate its contrary claims.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant?
- Does the failure to produce a claimed dower deed undermine a tenant's denial of the landlord-tenant relationship?
- Is a registered sale deed sufficient to support a finding of ownership in rent restriction proceedings?
- Section 13, Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959
ORDER
' MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.-- Respondents herein filed an application in the Court of the learned Rent Controller, Peshawar under section 13 of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 for the ejectment of the present petitioner on the ground that he was the owner of the suit house, purchased by him under a registered deed, dated 3-5-1973 and that the petitioner was his tenant @ Rs,100 per month in the half portion of the house in dispute and that the petitioner had committed default in the payment of rent and was, therefore, liable to ejectment. The learned Rent Controller accepted the application and ordered the ejectment of the petitioner vide his order dated 7-5-1981. This order was challenged in appeal in the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Peshawar who dismissed the appeal vide judgment, dated 3-12-1981. Petitioner then filed second appeal in the Peshawar High Court and the learned Chief Justice dismissed the same vide the impugned order dated 12-2-1983. By this petition leave is sought from this Court on the following grounds:
(i) That there existed no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, and, therefore, the learned Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to entertain the application for ejectment;
(ii) That there was no written Rent Deed and as such the respondent had failed to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant;
(iii) That the Courts below have not properly addressed themselves to issue No,1 and decided the same in a cursory manner without taking into consideration the documentary as well as oral evidence produced by the petitioner establishing the non-existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
2. We have examined the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and find no substance in the arguments made before us. No doubt, the petitioner had claimed that he had inherited half of the suit house from Mst. Meraj Begum alongwith her other heirs on the basis of a dower deed but he failed to produce the dower deed in the Courts below; nor he produced any witness to support his claim to the half portion of the house. On the other hand, the respondent produced the registered sale-deed and also produced the witnesses to show that the suit house was sold to him by the father of the petitioner. Therefore, on the basis of material brought before the Courts below we do not find any fault in their concurrent finding. Mst. Jan Sultan as A.W.2 stated before the learned Rent Controller that the house in dispute belonged to her husband Wazir Muhammad who had sold it to the respondent and thereafter she, alongwith the other members of her family, shifted to Haji Camp and thereafter shifted to the house in question and paid rent for two months.
3. Wazir Muhammad was the father of the petitioner, so when the learned counsel was asked to explain as to why Mst. Jan Sultan had made statement adverse to the interest of her son the petitioner, all he could say was that there were some family differences between Mst. Jan Sultan and the wife of the petitioner. This does not find support from any material on the record. Leave refused and the petition is, accordingly, dismissed.