ALI MUZAFFAR vs TAJ MUHAMMAD and 2 others
This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Lahore High Court upholding the judgment of the Additional District Judge, which reversed the Rent Controller's dismissal of an ejectment petition and ordered the eviction of the petitioner. The core legal question concerns the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the consequent jurisdiction of the Rent Controller, as the petitioner contended he was a licensee rather than a tenant, making a Civil Court the only competent forum. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the questions regarding the relationship of the parties and the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller require closer examination. The key principle laid down is that where the foundational relationship of landlord and tenant is disputed and the evidence suggests a different legal status such as a licensee, the jurisdictional competence of the Rent Controller warrants detailed consideration by the appellate court.
- Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties?
- Does the Rent Controller have jurisdiction to proceed against a person whose status is alleged to be that of a licensee?
- Can an appellate court reverse the finding of a Rent Controller regarding the existence of a tenancy relationship?
ORDER
' ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.--This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, dated 7-2-1988.
2. Taj Muhammad (respondent No,1) filed an eviction petition against the petitioner from a. Portion of the property in dispute on the ground of default in the payment of rent from February, 1980 to February, 1983 at the rate of Rs,300 per month, personal need and unauthorised alteration, damage and nuisance. The petitioner denied the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, as a result of which a solitary issue was framed and the Rent Controller after recording the evidence of the parties held that such a relationship did not exist and thus dismissed the ejectment petition on 12-10-1983. Respondent No,1 then filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, who, vide his judgment dated 30-7-1984, reversed the finding of the trial Court on the question of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and thus accepted the appeal and ordered the ejectment of the petitioner from the disputed property. The petitioner then filed a writ petition in the High Court which was dismissed through the impugned order.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He vehemently contended that the learned Judge in his Chambers has erred in law in holding that the petitioner was a statutory tenant under the respondent and thus there existed the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
According to the learned counsel, as per evidence the status of the petitioner is that of a licensee and the only forum which was competent to proceed against the petitioner was the Civil Court.
4. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of evidence on record, we think the question of existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller to proceed in the matter needs consideration.
Leave is, therefore, granted. Security Rs,5,000. The appeal shall be heard on the present record with liberty to the parties to file additional documents, if any. It is further directed that this appeal may be fixed for hearing at an early date.
' Leave to .