Sh. MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE vs Mian NADIR JANG BAHADUR and others
This appeal arises from a constitutional petition dismissed by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld an eviction order against the appellant passed by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the Additional District Judge. The core legal question was whether the appellant, having previously admitted the respondent's status as landlord in earlier litigation and documentary evidence, could subsequently challenge the Rent Controller's jurisdiction by claiming the property belonged to the Custodian of Enemy Evacuee Property and denying the landlord-tenant relationship. The Supreme Court held that the appellant was estopped from denying the respondent's title or the landlord-tenant relationship due to his own prior admissions. The Court affirmed the lower courts' findings, noting that the respondent's evidence regarding the relationship remained unrebutted. The key principle laid down is that a tenant who has previously admitted the landlord's title and the existence of a tenancy relationship in legal proceedings or documents is precluded from later denying that relationship or the landlord's title in eviction proceedings.
- Can a tenant deny the landlord's title after having previously admitted the landlord-tenant relationship in earlier proceedings?
- Is a tenant estopped from challenging the Rent Controller's jurisdiction when they have previously acknowledged the landlord's status?
1. ' ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.-- This is an appeal from the judgment of Lahore High Court dismissing a constitutional petition filed by the appellant by which he sought to challenge the order of eviction passed against him by the Rent Controller which was upheld on appeal by the Additional District Judge, Lahore. The proceedings were initiated on an ejectment application filed by the first respondent against appellant on the ground that he was defaulter in payment of rent. In defence, appellant, inter alia, pleaded that the demised premises belonged to the Custodian of Enemy Evacuee Property and there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, and in fact the Rent Controller did not even have jurisdiction to deal with the case.
2. ' After recording evidence of the parties the Rent Controller held that since in the earlier suit filed by appellant against the respondent he had himself admitted that the respondent was the landlord of the demised premises and this position was also proved in evidence from other documents, it did not lie in the mouth of the appellant to plead that the respondent was not his landlord in respect of the demised premises.
3. ' Appellant's challenge to this order in appeal failed as the Additional District Judge also agreed with the view of the Rent Controller in these words:- "So far the merits of the case are concerned, the evidence of the petitioner (the respondent herein) stands unrebutted. He produced oral as well as documentary evidence and he produced a copy of a document containing admissions of the present appellant in which he had admitted the relationship of landlord between him and the petitioner, therefore, the oral as well as the documentary evidence of the petitioner having not been rebutted by the present appellant, the Rent Controller was justified in giving the findings in favour of the petitioner."
4. ' The appellant the challenged these orders in a constitutional petition before the Lahore High Court but it was also dismissed.
5. Leave to appeal was granted to examine the aforesaid legal pleas advanced by the appellant but after having gone through the record, we find that no exception can be taken against the judgment of the High Court, for it stands proved from the documents produced in evidence that appellant had himself admitted the respondent as his landlord in respect of the demised premises, and he, therefore, cannot be permitted to deny his title to the property. This position has already been clarified by this Court in Kalimullah v. Amin Hazin and others 1976 SCMR 77.
6. ' For these reasons, the appeal fails and is dismissed, with no order as to costs.
Cited by 2 cases
- HAZRAT SHAH Versus DR. MUHAMMAD HANIF 1992 MLD 1195
- Kh. MUHAMMAD KUMAIL vs GANI AND TAYAB Ltd. 1990 MLD 1177