Mst. BALOB EGUM vs ABDUL SALAM
This matter concerns an ejectment application filed by the petitioner, Mst. Balo Begum, against the respondent, Abdul Salam, under the Displaced Persons Act, alleging non-payment of rent. The respondent contested the application, claiming the petitioner had entered into a sale agreement renouncing her right to rent, and further alleged that the petitioner was not the true transferee of the property. The Rent Controller framed a preliminary issue regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant but declined to decide it, citing the pendency of a civil suit for specific performance filed by the respondent. The Sind High Court dismissed the petitioner's appeal in limine, affirming that the ownership dispute required civil court adjudication. Upon petition for leave to appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether a Rent Controller can refuse to determine the relationship of landlord and tenant simply because a separate civil suit regarding title is pending. The Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the Rent Controller's failure to decide the preliminary issue and the potential frivolousness of the respondent's plea raised substantial questions of law requiring further consideration.
- Can a Rent Controller refuse to determine the relationship of landlord and tenant solely because a civil suit regarding title is pending?
- Is a Rent Controller obligated to decide a preliminary issue framed in an ejectment application?
- Does the pendency of a suit for specific performance automatically oust the jurisdiction of a Rent Controller to determine the relationship of landlord and tenant?
- Section 30, Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958
ORDER
ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZAJ.--Petitioner Mst. Balo Begum claiming to be the transferee of the house in dispute from the Settlement Department instituted an ejectment application against he respondent on the ground that in spite of notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons Act he had failed to pay or tender rent for the premises in his occupation. The respondent admitted that had not tendered rent to the petitioner but in his defence he pleaded that the petitioner had entered into sale agreement, dated 30th October, 1976 whereby she had renounced her claim to charge any rent from the respondent for the portion of the property in his occupation. At the trial the petitioner denied that she had agreed to sell the property to the petitioner and asserted that the agreement of sale is a forged document. In view of the pleadings of the parties the learned Rent Controller framed a preliminary issue on the question whether there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. He decided the issue against the petitioner. The learned Rent Controller observed that Mst. Balo Begum daughter of Ch. Qadir Khan had appeared in evidence and produced the P.T.D. Of the property in her favour. He also referred to the statement of the respondent in which his plea was that although the property was transferred to Mst. Balo Begum but the lady who had instituted the application for ejectment is not the real transferee of the property. According to him the applicant before Rent Controller was Balo Begum of Karachi whereas the real transferee was one Balo Begum from Sukkur. After referring to this extraordinary and surprising plea taken by the respondent in his evidence, the learned Rent Controller held that as the respondent had filed suit for specific performance of the alleged sale agreement against the transferee Mst. Balo Begum, the question of relationship of landlord and tenant could not be decided. Accordingly the petitioner's application was dismissed vide order, dated 27th March, 1985.
2. Being aggrieved the petitioner went before the Sind High Court in first appeal. A learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the appeal of the petitioner in limine on the ground that there was a dispute between the parties on the ownership as to which of the two Balo Begum was the real transferee, which according to the learned Judge can only be decided by the civil Court.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in support of this petition for leave to appeal has referred us to a recent decision of this Court in Province of Punjab v. Mufti Abdul Ghani PLD 1985 SC 1 and has contended that the Rent Controller could not refuse to determine the preliminary issue framed by him and leave it undecided on the ground that a suit was filed by the tenant in which the question of title in respect of the disputed property was pending adjudication. Counsel submitted that in any case the plea taken by the respondent at the stage of his evidence was palpably frivolous and without foundation, which ought not to have been made the basis for rejecting the application of the petitioner. The questions raised in the argument are substantial questions of law which require consideration. Leave is accordingly granted. Security Rs.1,000.