QALAB E HUSSAIN vs MUHAMMAD NADIM And Other
This matter concerns a civil petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment dismissing a constitutional petition, and a related criminal original petition regarding an alleged violation of a stay order. The petitioner challenged his eviction as a tenant, denying the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship with the respondents, who had purchased the property. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' findings, holding that upon the transfer of ownership, the previous agency arrangement regarding rent collection terminated, and the new owners were entitled to receive rent. The Court rejected the petitioner's plea as flimsy. Regarding the criminal original petition, the petitioner alleged that his dispossession occurred despite a stay order issued by the Supreme Court and a subsequent recall order by the executing court. However, the Court found no evidence that the stay order was communicated to the respondents before the execution process was completed, as the bailiff's report and supporting affidavits indicated the execution was finalized prior to any notice. Consequently, both the civil petition and the criminal original petition were dismissed.
- Does the agency arrangement for rent collection between a previous owner and an agent terminate upon the transfer of property ownership?
- Are new property owners entitled to receive rent from a tenant after serving notice under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restrictions Ordinance 1959?
- Can a party be held in contempt for violating a stay order if there is no proof the order was communicated before the execution of the decree was completed?
- Section 13-A, West Pakistan Urban Rent Restrictions Ordinance 1959
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--These two matters C.P. No. 1251 of 1983 and Criminal Original No. 14 of 1983, arise out of the same case, therefore, they are being disposed of together.
2. Civil petition for leave to appeal is directed against judgment, dated 11-10-1983 of the Lahore High Curt whereby a Constitutional petition filed by the petitioner challenging his eviction as a tenant under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restrictions Ordinance, 1959, was dismissed.
3. The petitioner was sought to be evicted by the respondents 1 to 4 on grounds of default, damage to the property and personal requirement as also non-payment of electricity charges. The petitioner's plea was that of denial thereof. He also declined to accept the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. This last plea was canvassed in the High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction.
4. After careful analysis of the facts involved, a learned single Judge of the High Court came to the conclusion that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties, and accordingly dismissed the Constitutional petition. Leave to appeal has, therefore, now been sought.
5. The question of relationship of landlord and tenant has been resolved by the learned Courts below by elaborate examination of the facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioner's plea was that he was the tenant of Hakeem Muhammad Afzal whose father had sold the premises in dispute to the respondents and they had served a notice under section 13-A of the Ordinance on the petitioner. The Courts have rightly held that the new owners had become entitled to recover rent from the petitioner and even if as alleged by him he had been paying rent to the agent of the previous owner, namely, his son there was no justification for him to claim that by virtue of this circumstance, said Muhammad Afzal was his landlord. As soon as the ownership changed the arrangement of agency between the previous owner and his agent ended forthwith and the new owners had become entitled to receive rent from the petitioner tenant. They had' made such a demand from the petitioner through a notice, the receipt of which has not been denied.
6. Looked at from whatever angle, the plea of lack of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties being flimsy had rightly been rejected by the learned two Courts below. There is no force in the civil petition for leave to appeal. Accordingly leave is refused.
7. The Criminal Original No. 14 of 1983 arises in the circumstances that this Court passed an interim order on filing of the afore disposed of civil petition for leave to appeal whereby the ejectment of the petitioner was stayed pending the disposal of the petitioner. This order was passed on 20th October, 1983 at 10-15 a.m. On the same day the execution of the ejectment order had taken place at site. The information about the stay order passed by this Court was, according to the petitioner, conveyed to the bailiff and the respondents through one Imtiaz Hussain. He approached the learned executing Court which passed an order of recall of the warrant of possession on' the same day and sent its order through Imtiaz Hussain at the site where execution was taking place.
8. According to the petitioner the execution through dispossession had not yet been completed when the order was conveyed to the concerned persons at the site where execution was taking place. No affidavit has been produced of Imtiaz Hussain to support the version of the petitioner that he had conveyed the order of the executing Court during the process of execution. On the contrary Noor Muhammad father of respondents Nos. 1 to 4 who are minors has sworn an affidavit supported by a copy of the Bailiff's Report showing that the execution had been completed much earlier than the alleged arrival of Imtiaz Hussain at the site.
9. That being so, there is no certainty that either the order oft this Court or that of the Executing Court was conveyed to the respondents in this criminal original petition, during the time of the execution and that at that time it had not been completed. We feel that no useful purpose would be served by proceeding any further in this matter. Criminal Original No: 14 of 1983 is also dismissed.