FAZAL HAQ And Others vs MUHAMMAD RAMZAN And Other
This petition for leave to appeal challenges an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a Constitutional petition against concurrent findings of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller and the District Judge. The core legal question concerns whether tenants can avoid ejectment for default in rent payment by disputing the landlord's title in parallel civil court proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the ejectment orders were correctly passed, noting that the respondents had been established as the landlords of the property in dispute, a finding that had become unassailable. The Court affirmed that the petitioners' default in rent payment, predicated on their challenge to the respondents' title, justified the ejectment. The key principle laid down is that where the relationship of landlord and tenant is established and the landlord's title is effectively settled, a tenant cannot unilaterally withhold rent or avoid ejectment on the basis of a pending, separate title dispute in civil courts.
- Can a tenant avoid ejectment for default in rent payment by disputing the landlord's title in parallel civil proceedings?
- Is an order of ejectment sustainable when the relationship of landlord and tenant has been established and the landlord's title is unassailable?
- Rent Restriction Ordinance
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--This petition for leave is directed against the order, dated 1-10-1985 passed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, in Writ Petition No. 369 of 1985, whereby the Constitutional petition filed by the petitioners challenging the orders of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller, dated 28-7-1982 and upheld, on appeal, by the District Judge on 18-6-1985, was dismissed.
2. In the present proceedings we are concerned only with the proceedings for ejectment initiated under the Rent Restriction Ordinance and not any other matter.
3. Protracted litigation has been in progress between the parties, extending to some 20 years both before the Rent Control authorities and before the civil Courts. In the former, the question of ejectment is involved, while the question of title has been raised in the civil Courts. In the former, the respondents have been found to be the landlords of the property in dispute and this finding is now unassailable. Admittedly, the petitioners have defaulted in payment of rent since they were disputing the title of the respondents over the property. The Rent Controller and the District Judge are clearly correct in ordering their ejectment in the circumstances, and the decision to order the ejectment of the petitioners is not open to objection.
4. The result is that this petition fails and is dismissed hereby.
Cited by 1 case
- SAMI ULLAH Versus HAMEED KAUSAR 1988 CLC 131